<?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 (9) TMI 125 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278104</link>
    <description>An irrevocable power of attorney in favour of a bank, executed under a contract that expressly negated any right or equity against the Government, operated only as an equitable assignment coupled with agency. The arrangement allowed the bank to receive and appropriate payment on behalf of the contractors, but it did not extinguish the contractors&#039; role as principals or confer an independent right on the bank to claim payment directly. Because no separate contract or privity arose between the bank and the Government, the bank could not enforce the debt in its own name. The suit was therefore not maintainable and dismissal was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2019 14:56:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=552030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (9) TMI 125 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278104</link>
      <description>An irrevocable power of attorney in favour of a bank, executed under a contract that expressly negated any right or equity against the Government, operated only as an equitable assignment coupled with agency. The arrangement allowed the bank to receive and appropriate payment on behalf of the contractors, but it did not extinguish the contractors&#039; role as principals or confer an independent right on the bank to claim payment directly. Because no separate contract or privity arose between the bank and the Government, the bank could not enforce the debt in its own name. The suit was therefore not maintainable and dismissal was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>