<?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>1955 (4) TMI 39 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174342</link>
    <description>A running account debt arising from continuing dealings was held to be governed by the law of Lyallpur, because the relationship, delivery of goods, account keeping, and repayment obligation were all localized there and the transaction had its closest and most real connection with that place. Under the Pakistan Ordinance, debts of evacuees vested in the Custodian as actionable property, and payment to the Custodian operated to discharge the debtor to the extent of that payment. The debt was not treated as a mere bank deposit, and the argument that the legislation was confiscatory or contrary to public policy was rejected. The debt therefore stood transferred to the Custodian and the defendant&#039;s liability was released.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:15:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (4) TMI 39 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174342</link>
      <description>A running account debt arising from continuing dealings was held to be governed by the law of Lyallpur, because the relationship, delivery of goods, account keeping, and repayment obligation were all localized there and the transaction had its closest and most real connection with that place. Under the Pakistan Ordinance, debts of evacuees vested in the Custodian as actionable property, and payment to the Custodian operated to discharge the debtor to the extent of that payment. The debt was not treated as a mere bank deposit, and the argument that the legislation was confiscatory or contrary to public policy was rejected. The debt therefore stood transferred to the Custodian and the defendant&#039;s liability was released.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>