https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284766 A quarry lease arrangement was not a transfer, assignment or underletting in law where the lessee merely engaged a contractor to extract limestone and a company to purchase the mineral, because the lessee did not divest his rights. Cancellation and rejection of transfer sanction could not be justified on that basis. The alleged accounting default also could not support determination of the lease because the applicable rule required a written notice calling for cure within 30 days, and no such notice was issued. Refusal of sanction on extraneous grounds was likewise unsustainable. The impugned orders were quashed and the State was directed to decide the transfer application according to law. en-us Thu, 10 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:48:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284766 A quarry lease arrangement was not a transfer, assignment or underletting in law where the lessee merely engaged a contractor to extract limestone and a company to purchase the mineral, because the lessee did not divest his rights. Cancellation and rejection of transfer sanction could not be justified on that basis. The alleged accounting default also could not support determination of the lease because the applicable rule required a written notice calling for cure within 30 days, and no such notice was issued. Refusal of sanction on extraneous grounds was likewise unsustainable. The impugned orders were quashed and the State was directed to decide the transfer application according to law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284766