<?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>1975 (4) TMI 133 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171254</link>
    <description>A member&#039;s right to occupy a flat in a cooperative housing society was treated as a transferable property interest capable of attachment and sale in execution. Section 31 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act protected only the share or interest in the society&#039;s capital, not the occupation right itself, while section 29 allowed transfer of a member&#039;s interest subject to conditions. Rule 24 and the bye-laws did not impose an absolute statutory bar, and section 47 was distinguished as dealing with charges in favour of the society and void transfers. Section 60 CPC was not exhaustive, so the absence of express mention did not prevent execution against a saleable interest. The objection to attachment failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:55:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390328" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (4) TMI 133 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171254</link>
      <description>A member&#039;s right to occupy a flat in a cooperative housing society was treated as a transferable property interest capable of attachment and sale in execution. Section 31 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act protected only the share or interest in the society&#039;s capital, not the occupation right itself, while section 29 allowed transfer of a member&#039;s interest subject to conditions. Rule 24 and the bye-laws did not impose an absolute statutory bar, and section 47 was distinguished as dealing with charges in favour of the society and void transfers. Section 60 CPC was not exhaustive, so the absence of express mention did not prevent execution against a saleable interest. The objection to attachment failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>