<?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>1996 (10) TMI 506 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198809</link>
    <description>Property under receivership remains in custodia legis, but the court or receiver does not acquire title free of existing third-party rights. A receiver may take preservation measures, yet cannot override statutory tenancy protections or conclusively decide disputed rights in a summary proceeding. Where a tenant is alleged to be using the premises for an activity outside the tenancy and prejudicial to preservation, preventive relief may be granted after a fair opportunity to respond. On the tenant&#039;s claim that the structures pre-existed and the permit room was lawfully licensed, those disputed questions required proper legal proceedings. The summary directions for demolition and restraint of the permit room were not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:01:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 506 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198809</link>
      <description>Property under receivership remains in custodia legis, but the court or receiver does not acquire title free of existing third-party rights. A receiver may take preservation measures, yet cannot override statutory tenancy protections or conclusively decide disputed rights in a summary proceeding. Where a tenant is alleged to be using the premises for an activity outside the tenancy and prejudicial to preservation, preventive relief may be granted after a fair opportunity to respond. On the tenant&#039;s claim that the structures pre-existed and the permit room was lawfully licensed, those disputed questions required proper legal proceedings. The summary directions for demolition and restraint of the permit room were not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198809</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>