https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193687 The High Court held that the petitioners had valid grounds to maintain the petition seeking possession of premises under the Banking Regulation Act, granting exclusive jurisdiction to the High Court. The court found the lease termination invalid due to lack of proper notice and evidence of breaches. It upheld the right of the official liquidator to assign tenancy rights, as permitted by the lease agreement. The court clarified that the Bombay Land Requisition Act did not invalidate the assignment. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, allowing the official liquidator to proceed with the assignment of leasehold rights. en-us Mon, 03 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Aug 2017 12:37:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193687 The High Court held that the petitioners had valid grounds to maintain the petition seeking possession of premises under the Banking Regulation Act, granting exclusive jurisdiction to the High Court. The court found the lease termination invalid due to lack of proper notice and evidence of breaches. It upheld the right of the official liquidator to assign tenancy rights, as permitted by the lease agreement. The court clarified that the Bombay Land Requisition Act did not invalidate the assignment. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, allowing the official liquidator to proceed with the assignment of leasehold rights. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193687