<?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>1949 (5) TMI 15 - FEDERAL COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197626</link>
    <description>Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act requires a pledgee to give the pledgor notice before selling pledged shares. A purchaser from a pledgee generally cannot obtain better title than the pledgee, unless protected as a bona fide purchaser without notice. The sale to an intermediary is treated as a completed sale based on surrounding documents, conduct and accounting entries. At the same time, the absence of notice and purchasers&#039; knowledge of the pledgee&#039;s limited title are presented as preserving the Official Assignee&#039;s right of redemption. The stated final position nevertheless treats the prior sale as validating the appellant&#039;s title and defeating redemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:56:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1949 (5) TMI 15 - FEDERAL COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197626</link>
      <description>Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act requires a pledgee to give the pledgor notice before selling pledged shares. A purchaser from a pledgee generally cannot obtain better title than the pledgee, unless protected as a bona fide purchaser without notice. The sale to an intermediary is treated as a completed sale based on surrounding documents, conduct and accounting entries. At the same time, the absence of notice and purchasers&#039; knowledge of the pledgee&#039;s limited title are presented as preserving the Official Assignee&#039;s right of redemption. The stated final position nevertheless treats the prior sale as validating the appellant&#039;s title and defeating redemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>