<?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>1964 (10) TMI 97 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192866</link>
    <description>A mining leasehold brought by co-lessees before formation of a partnership did not become partnership property merely because it was used for partnership business. A contribution or transfer of mining leasehold rights to a partnership required previous written consent under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960; without that consent, the transfer was invalid. Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 also rendered any lease or interest acquired in contravention of the Act or Rules void and of no effect. On that basis, the original lessee retained a subsisting leasehold interest, which could support a strong prima facie case and justify protection of the property by receivership.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:21:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=475697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (10) TMI 97 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192866</link>
      <description>A mining leasehold brought by co-lessees before formation of a partnership did not become partnership property merely because it was used for partnership business. A contribution or transfer of mining leasehold rights to a partnership required previous written consent under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960; without that consent, the transfer was invalid. Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 also rendered any lease or interest acquired in contravention of the Act or Rules void and of no effect. On that basis, the original lessee retained a subsisting leasehold interest, which could support a strong prima facie case and justify protection of the property by receivership.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>