<?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>1976 (8) TMI 172 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273523</link>
    <description>Section 70 of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 was read as applying Section 39 only to existing chitties in operation on the commencement date, so it did not reopen closed chit transactions that had already ceased before the Act came into force. On insolvency set-off, Section 47 of the Insolvency Act, 1955 was applied to mutual monetary claims arising from chit subscriptions, prized ticket claims, unprized chits and term deposits, because the company dealt in the same right and capacity throughout. Separate chit series or distinct transactions did not prevent adjustment of reciprocal claims. The statutory set-off was therefore available, subject to the temporal limits of the chit law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2018 12:15:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (8) TMI 172 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273523</link>
      <description>Section 70 of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 was read as applying Section 39 only to existing chitties in operation on the commencement date, so it did not reopen closed chit transactions that had already ceased before the Act came into force. On insolvency set-off, Section 47 of the Insolvency Act, 1955 was applied to mutual monetary claims arising from chit subscriptions, prized ticket claims, unprized chits and term deposits, because the company dealt in the same right and capacity throughout. Separate chit series or distinct transactions did not prevent adjustment of reciprocal claims. The statutory set-off was therefore available, subject to the temporal limits of the chit law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>