<?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>1930 (5) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290907</link>
    <description>A lease may create a charge without technical words where it clearly appropriates a definite rent share or fund as security for repayment of a debt. On that footing, the burden is treated as part of the lease and binds transferees of the lessor&#039;s interest, including purchasers with constructive notice from a registered instrument. The decision also distinguishes contractual appropriation or payment from set-off: a tenant who merely relies on the lease to show that part of the demand has already been satisfied is not raising an independent cross-claim. On that reasoning, the set-off objection under the Agra Tenancy Act was not attracted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 1930 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:49:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1930 (5) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290907</link>
      <description>A lease may create a charge without technical words where it clearly appropriates a definite rent share or fund as security for repayment of a debt. On that footing, the burden is treated as part of the lease and binds transferees of the lessor&#039;s interest, including purchasers with constructive notice from a registered instrument. The decision also distinguishes contractual appropriation or payment from set-off: a tenant who merely relies on the lease to show that part of the demand has already been satisfied is not raising an independent cross-claim. On that reasoning, the set-off objection under the Agra Tenancy Act was not attracted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 1930 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>