<?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>2001 (10) TMI 1149 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177598</link>
    <description>A purchaser under a power of attorney sale who paid full consideration, obtained possession, and held contemporaneous instruments such as a power of attorney and registered will had enforceable pre-existing rights in the property. On those facts, the arrangement created an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act and attracted the protection of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. An attaching creditor could not acquire any higher right than the judgment-debtor and therefore could not defeat the transferee&#039;s prior rights through execution attachment. The objection to attachment was maintainable and entitled to succeed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:58:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412969" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 1149 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177598</link>
      <description>A purchaser under a power of attorney sale who paid full consideration, obtained possession, and held contemporaneous instruments such as a power of attorney and registered will had enforceable pre-existing rights in the property. On those facts, the arrangement created an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act and attracted the protection of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. An attaching creditor could not acquire any higher right than the judgment-debtor and therefore could not defeat the transferee&#039;s prior rights through execution attachment. The objection to attachment was maintainable and entitled to succeed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>