<?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>1944 (4) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273598</link>
    <description>The court held that the plant and machinery of the bone mill were considered immovable property due to their attachment to the factory floor for beneficial enjoyment. Consequently, the dubashee agreement required registration for validity. The appeal was allowed, and the suit against defendant 5 was dismissed, with the appellant awarded costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 1944 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 12:11:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1944 (4) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273598</link>
      <description>The court held that the plant and machinery of the bone mill were considered immovable property due to their attachment to the factory floor for beneficial enjoyment. Consequently, the dubashee agreement required registration for validity. The appeal was allowed, and the suit against defendant 5 was dismissed, with the appellant awarded costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 1944 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>