<?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>1950 (1) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284928</link>
    <description>The Provincial Insolvency (Amendment) Act, 1948 was treated as valid legislation on bankruptcy and insolvency under the pith and substance doctrine, with any effect on agricultural land regarded as incidental. Section 28A was construed broadly to include the insolvent&#039;s power over property and to vest that power in the Official Receiver for effective administration of the estate. On the sale documents and surrounding circumstances, the receiver was understood to have conveyed the family properties, including the sons&#039; shares, and the proviso based on a final prior decision was held inapplicable because the earlier decree was still under appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:25:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597578" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1950 (1) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284928</link>
      <description>The Provincial Insolvency (Amendment) Act, 1948 was treated as valid legislation on bankruptcy and insolvency under the pith and substance doctrine, with any effect on agricultural land regarded as incidental. Section 28A was construed broadly to include the insolvent&#039;s power over property and to vest that power in the Official Receiver for effective administration of the estate. On the sale documents and surrounding circumstances, the receiver was understood to have conveyed the family properties, including the sons&#039; shares, and the proviso based on a final prior decision was held inapplicable because the earlier decree was still under appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>