<?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>2016 (11) TMI 1461 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194848</link>
    <description>A conveyance of immovable property takes legal effect only upon registration, so registration completed after a court restraint order can amount to breach by parties bound by that order. The company and its directors were therefore found guilty of violating the restraint order because they proceeded with registration after the injunction, despite prior knowledge of it. However, the Court declined to invalidate the transfer in contempt proceedings, as the transferee was not shown to be bound or served and the matter had already been left to the appropriate statutory forum. Contempt was not proved against the registering officials, the transferee company, its directors, or the alleged controlling individuals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jul 2024 10:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1461 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194848</link>
      <description>A conveyance of immovable property takes legal effect only upon registration, so registration completed after a court restraint order can amount to breach by parties bound by that order. The company and its directors were therefore found guilty of violating the restraint order because they proceeded with registration after the injunction, despite prior knowledge of it. However, the Court declined to invalidate the transfer in contempt proceedings, as the transferee was not shown to be bound or served and the matter had already been left to the appropriate statutory forum. Contempt was not proved against the registering officials, the transferee company, its directors, or the alleged controlling individuals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194848</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>