<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (2) TMI 463 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112795</link>
    <description>Executed leave and licence agreements were held to exist from the date of execution, even though the licence term was to begin later, because postponement of performance did not negate formation of the contract. Non-registration under section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act did not help the company where the dispute concerned construction of admitted contractual terms rather than a true factual contention, and the company could not rely on its own conduct to avoid the agreements. On winding up, the Court found no bona fide defence: the alleged ability to pay and mitigation arguments did not displace the undisputed debt. Conditional relief was granted, subject to deposit and further procedural consequences on default.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149811" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 463 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112795</link>
      <description>Executed leave and licence agreements were held to exist from the date of execution, even though the licence term was to begin later, because postponement of performance did not negate formation of the contract. Non-registration under section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act did not help the company where the dispute concerned construction of admitted contractual terms rather than a true factual contention, and the company could not rely on its own conduct to avoid the agreements. On winding up, the Court found no bona fide defence: the alleged ability to pay and mitigation arguments did not displace the undisputed debt. Conditional relief was granted, subject to deposit and further procedural consequences on default.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>