<?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>2011 (8) TMI 1095 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172954</link>
    <description>In a high seas sale of coal, the seller&#039;s claimed lien and unpaid price were treated as relevant to interim protection, while the purchaser&#039;s entitlement to lift the remaining cargo depended on payment of the amount directed by the court. The Court confined itself to the interlocutory balance between safeguarding the seller&#039;s dues and allowing delivery on deposit, without finally deciding the parties&#039; ultimate rights. It modified the High Court&#039;s order so that, after deduction of the price of coal already lifted, the purchaser could take the remaining coal on depositing the directed amount; failing deposit, the High Court&#039;s order would continue to operate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1095 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172954</link>
      <description>In a high seas sale of coal, the seller&#039;s claimed lien and unpaid price were treated as relevant to interim protection, while the purchaser&#039;s entitlement to lift the remaining cargo depended on payment of the amount directed by the court. The Court confined itself to the interlocutory balance between safeguarding the seller&#039;s dues and allowing delivery on deposit, without finally deciding the parties&#039; ultimate rights. It modified the High Court&#039;s order so that, after deduction of the price of coal already lifted, the purchaser could take the remaining coal on depositing the directed amount; failing deposit, the High Court&#039;s order would continue to operate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172954</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>