<?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>2010 (5) TMI 396 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113433</link>
    <description>A landlord company&#039;s accrued right to eviction on bona fide requirement survives its amalgamation where the approved scheme preserves pending proceedings and transfers the transferor&#039;s rights to the transferee company. The transferee may therefore continue and enforce an eviction decree that had crystallised before amalgamation. Amalgamation is not, by itself, a subsequent event requiring denial of eviction: it does not displace a subsisting business requirement, particularly where revisional jurisdiction is limited and delay should not prejudice vested rights. A plea concerning other available properties fails where the relevant proviso does not apply and occupation of those properties is not factually established. The eviction order remains enforceable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2019 15:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150439" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 396 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113433</link>
      <description>A landlord company&#039;s accrued right to eviction on bona fide requirement survives its amalgamation where the approved scheme preserves pending proceedings and transfers the transferor&#039;s rights to the transferee company. The transferee may therefore continue and enforce an eviction decree that had crystallised before amalgamation. Amalgamation is not, by itself, a subsequent event requiring denial of eviction: it does not displace a subsisting business requirement, particularly where revisional jurisdiction is limited and delay should not prejudice vested rights. A plea concerning other available properties fails where the relevant proviso does not apply and occupation of those properties is not factually established. The eviction order remains enforceable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>