<?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>2006 (3) TMI 771 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196042</link>
    <description>Permitting subsidiary companies, treated as separate legal entities, to occupy tenancy premises for rent or reimbursement can amount to subletting, assignment, or transfer under Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. A holding-subsidiary relationship does not by itself negate transfer of legal possession where consideration is paid by the subsidiaries and the arrangement places them in actual occupation. Acceptance of such consideration, together with occupation by the subsidiaries&#039; officers, satisfies the ingredients of illegal subletting even if the arrangement later ended before the suit. On these facts, illegal subletting was established in favour of the two subsidiaries and eviction was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2017 18:25:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 771 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196042</link>
      <description>Permitting subsidiary companies, treated as separate legal entities, to occupy tenancy premises for rent or reimbursement can amount to subletting, assignment, or transfer under Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. A holding-subsidiary relationship does not by itself negate transfer of legal possession where consideration is paid by the subsidiaries and the arrangement places them in actual occupation. Acceptance of such consideration, together with occupation by the subsidiaries&#039; officers, satisfies the ingredients of illegal subletting even if the arrangement later ended before the suit. On these facts, illegal subletting was established in favour of the two subsidiaries and eviction was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196042</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>