<?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>1961 (4) TMI 115 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199838</link>
    <description>A receiver appointed over property continues until formally discharged and does not automatically cease merely because a final decree is passed where the decree leaves the receivership intact. Where possession is held under a court-supervised compromise and lease arrangement, the receiver may recover the property on expiry of the term because the occupant&#039;s possession remains subject to the court&#039;s control. In such circumstances, the court may authorise summary removal through the receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a separate suit is not necessary where no independent title dispute requires adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:36:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 115 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199838</link>
      <description>A receiver appointed over property continues until formally discharged and does not automatically cease merely because a final decree is passed where the decree leaves the receivership intact. Where possession is held under a court-supervised compromise and lease arrangement, the receiver may recover the property on expiry of the term because the occupant&#039;s possession remains subject to the court&#039;s control. In such circumstances, the court may authorise summary removal through the receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a separate suit is not necessary where no independent title dispute requires adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>