<?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>2008 (4) TMI 721 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175865</link>
    <description>Cancellation of a sub-lease was found unsustainable where service of the show cause notices was not proved in the statutory mode, the cancellation communication gave no reasoned finding on breach of Clause II, Sub-clause 14, and the alleged use of the premises for software development and IT-enabled services required reconsideration under the sub-lease deed and development plan. The court treated the service defect and non-speaking order as material and held that industrial use could not be excluded as a matter of law merely because the premises also involved storage or office functions. The cancellation was quashed, with liberty to issue a fresh notice, consider the reply, inspect the premises, and pass a speaking order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2015 17:23:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 721 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175865</link>
      <description>Cancellation of a sub-lease was found unsustainable where service of the show cause notices was not proved in the statutory mode, the cancellation communication gave no reasoned finding on breach of Clause II, Sub-clause 14, and the alleged use of the premises for software development and IT-enabled services required reconsideration under the sub-lease deed and development plan. The court treated the service defect and non-speaking order as material and held that industrial use could not be excluded as a matter of law merely because the premises also involved storage or office functions. The cancellation was quashed, with liberty to issue a fresh notice, consider the reply, inspect the premises, and pass a speaking order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>