<?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 (9) TMI 814 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208722</link>
    <description>Transfers made after notice under the SAFEMA forfeiture scheme do not create enforceable title where the property has already been proceeded against and forfeiture has been ordered. The Act treats post-notice transfers as ineffective for proceedings, and section 11 requires such transfers to be ignored and, on forfeiture, deemed null and void. A purchaser who acquires the property after commencement of forfeiture proceedings cannot claim rights against the forfeited property, especially where the notice and forfeiture steps have attained finality. The transfer in favour of the appellant was therefore ineffective and void for the purposes of the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 814 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208722</link>
      <description>Transfers made after notice under the SAFEMA forfeiture scheme do not create enforceable title where the property has already been proceeded against and forfeiture has been ordered. The Act treats post-notice transfers as ineffective for proceedings, and section 11 requires such transfers to be ignored and, on forfeiture, deemed null and void. A purchaser who acquires the property after commencement of forfeiture proceedings cannot claim rights against the forfeited property, especially where the notice and forfeiture steps have attained finality. The transfer in favour of the appellant was therefore ineffective and void for the purposes of the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>