<?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 452 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218437</link>
    <description>A court-sanctioned scheme of arrangement was held binding on the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, which had been a party to the proceedings and raised no objection when approval was sought. The scheme required the applicant-company or its promoters to pay the Board&#039;s dues, after which the Board had to execute and register the sale deed for the allotted land. The Board could not resist implementation on the ground that no lease-cum-sale agreement had been executed, particularly where allotment and possession had continued for decades and no cancellation of allotment was shown. The Court accepted the amount intimated as payable and directed compliance upon deposit of the dues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 452 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218437</link>
      <description>A court-sanctioned scheme of arrangement was held binding on the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, which had been a party to the proceedings and raised no objection when approval was sought. The scheme required the applicant-company or its promoters to pay the Board&#039;s dues, after which the Board had to execute and register the sale deed for the allotted land. The Board could not resist implementation on the ground that no lease-cum-sale agreement had been executed, particularly where allotment and possession had continued for decades and no cancellation of allotment was shown. The Court accepted the amount intimated as payable and directed compliance upon deposit of the dues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>