https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190674 A Bombay High Court decision treated an equipment transaction as a genuine lease or hiring arrangement because the agreement preserved the plaintiff's exclusive title, restricted the defendant from acting as owner, and granted only a contractual right of use. Temporary embedding of the machinery did not alter ownership, as the fixing was for better utilisation rather than permanent annexation. The Court also held that section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar appointment of a receiver, since the property remained that of the lessor and the defendant's use-right had already been terminated for default. en-us Thu, 24 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:15:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190674 A Bombay High Court decision treated an equipment transaction as a genuine lease or hiring arrangement because the agreement preserved the plaintiff's exclusive title, restricted the defendant from acting as owner, and granted only a contractual right of use. Temporary embedding of the machinery did not alter ownership, as the fixing was for better utilisation rather than permanent annexation. The Court also held that section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar appointment of a receiver, since the property remained that of the lessor and the defendant's use-right had already been terminated for default. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 24 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190674