<?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>2014 (9) TMI 418 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251392</link>
    <description>A statutory attachment or revenue charge cannot bind a transferee for consideration unless the purchaser had actual or constructive notice. Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act protects a bona fide purchaser without notice, while section 3 deems notice only where actual knowledge, wilful abstention from inquiry, gross negligence, or legally recognised notice is shown. On the record, the attachment was not properly published or effectively communicated to alert a purchaser, and the affidavits from the Sub-Registrar and Divisional Commissioner did not prove reliable service or record. The petitioners were therefore treated as bona fide purchasers without notice, and the attachment order, demands, and notices were quashed insofar as they applied to them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 418 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251392</link>
      <description>A statutory attachment or revenue charge cannot bind a transferee for consideration unless the purchaser had actual or constructive notice. Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act protects a bona fide purchaser without notice, while section 3 deems notice only where actual knowledge, wilful abstention from inquiry, gross negligence, or legally recognised notice is shown. On the record, the attachment was not properly published or effectively communicated to alert a purchaser, and the affidavits from the Sub-Registrar and Divisional Commissioner did not prove reliable service or record. The petitioners were therefore treated as bona fide purchasers without notice, and the attachment order, demands, and notices were quashed insofar as they applied to them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>