<?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>2015 (5) TMI 1171 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278079</link>
    <description>Prior written consent under Rule 15 validated the transfer of a mining lease from a partnership firm to a newly incorporated company, and the company&#039;s later changes in shareholding and directorship did not by themselves amount to a further transfer of the lease or a breach of control conditions, because the company remained a separate juristic person. Rule 72 could not be invoked to cancel the lease where the record showed no concealment, fraud, or substantive illegality in the original transfer, and the alleged defects were only inconsequential irregularities. The cancellation order was therefore unsustainable, and the lease transfer was upheld as not contrary to the Rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 06:53:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=551588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 1171 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278079</link>
      <description>Prior written consent under Rule 15 validated the transfer of a mining lease from a partnership firm to a newly incorporated company, and the company&#039;s later changes in shareholding and directorship did not by themselves amount to a further transfer of the lease or a breach of control conditions, because the company remained a separate juristic person. Rule 72 could not be invoked to cancel the lease where the record showed no concealment, fraud, or substantive illegality in the original transfer, and the alleged defects were only inconsequential irregularities. The cancellation order was therefore unsustainable, and the lease transfer was upheld as not contrary to the Rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>