<?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>2015 (1) TMI 321 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255122</link>
    <description>An adverse order cancelling sale deeds and directing dispossession was liable to be recalled where it was passed without notice to the affected applicants, because prior hearing is an element of natural justice protected by Article 14. The text also explains that registration of sale deeds for immovable property situated in Bihar at the Sub-Registrar&#039;s office in Mumbai was not invalid merely on that ground, as the Registration Act, 1908 was read with the constitutional distribution of legislative power and the then-operative Maharashtra registration scheme. It further notes that the later deletion of the relevant provisions confirmed that such prior Mumbai registrations were not void solely because the property lay in Bihar.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 321 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255122</link>
      <description>An adverse order cancelling sale deeds and directing dispossession was liable to be recalled where it was passed without notice to the affected applicants, because prior hearing is an element of natural justice protected by Article 14. The text also explains that registration of sale deeds for immovable property situated in Bihar at the Sub-Registrar&#039;s office in Mumbai was not invalid merely on that ground, as the Registration Act, 1908 was read with the constitutional distribution of legislative power and the then-operative Maharashtra registration scheme. It further notes that the later deletion of the relevant provisions confirmed that such prior Mumbai registrations were not void solely because the property lay in Bihar.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255122</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>