<?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>2012 (10) TMI 233 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217284</link>
    <description>The special statute governing sick industrial companies prevails over the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and an agreement for sale coupled with possession under part performance does not create title or an interest capable of defeating that statutory control. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction may also restrain or suspend transfer of land and require prior approval where the land is a major asset needed for the rehabilitation scheme, because Sections 22(1), 22(3) and 22A are construed to protect formulation and implementation of revival measures from asset dissipation. The Board&#039;s protective directions were therefore within jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 233 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217284</link>
      <description>The special statute governing sick industrial companies prevails over the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and an agreement for sale coupled with possession under part performance does not create title or an interest capable of defeating that statutory control. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction may also restrain or suspend transfer of land and require prior approval where the land is a major asset needed for the rehabilitation scheme, because Sections 22(1), 22(3) and 22A are construed to protect formulation and implementation of revival measures from asset dissipation. The Board&#039;s protective directions were therefore within jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>