<?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 (11) TMI 363 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218348</link>
    <description>A post-commencement disposition of a company&#039;s leasehold property will not be validated under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 unless the transfer is completed and the surrounding circumstances justify protection, including a showing that the transaction benefits the company or its creditors. On the facts, there was no executed agreement or registered conveyance, so validation was refused. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 also could not be invoked because there was no written contract with ascertainable terms and no proved basis for delivery of possession under such contract. The transfer was therefore not protected and possession was to be taken for the benefit of creditors and workers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 363 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218348</link>
      <description>A post-commencement disposition of a company&#039;s leasehold property will not be validated under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 unless the transfer is completed and the surrounding circumstances justify protection, including a showing that the transaction benefits the company or its creditors. On the facts, there was no executed agreement or registered conveyance, so validation was refused. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 also could not be invoked because there was no written contract with ascertainable terms and no proved basis for delivery of possession under such contract. The transfer was therefore not protected and possession was to be taken for the benefit of creditors and workers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>