<?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>1977 (11) TMI 141 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272456</link>
    <description>Whether an arrangement creates a lease or a licence depends on the parties&#039; intention gathered from the whole document and surrounding circumstances. Here, the auction terms and deed showed only a personal, limited and non-transferable right to occupy kiosks, with legal possession retained by the Corporation and the arrangement revocable at its instance. The court therefore treated the transaction as a licence and not a lease. Because the petitioners had no proprietary or possessory interest after termination of the licence, they could not satisfy the requirements for temporary injunction or restrain the Corporation from resuming possession. The petitions accordingly failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 May 2018 09:53:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (11) TMI 141 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272456</link>
      <description>Whether an arrangement creates a lease or a licence depends on the parties&#039; intention gathered from the whole document and surrounding circumstances. Here, the auction terms and deed showed only a personal, limited and non-transferable right to occupy kiosks, with legal possession retained by the Corporation and the arrangement revocable at its instance. The court therefore treated the transaction as a licence and not a lease. Because the petitioners had no proprietary or possessory interest after termination of the licence, they could not satisfy the requirements for temporary injunction or restrain the Corporation from resuming possession. The petitions accordingly failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>