<?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>1971 (4) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292557</link>
    <description>Statutory conditions governing construction-loan agreements under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act were held to be read into every such agreement by operation of law, whether oral or written. Non-compliance with the writing and registration requirements, and failure to complete the building within the statutory period without reasonable excuse, were treated as punishable breaches under Section 18(4). The omission to expressly state a charge on the building and land was not treated as a separate offence, because that condition also stood incorporated by law. Conviction was sustained on the proven breaches, while the sentence was reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2020 10:34:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=631668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (4) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292557</link>
      <description>Statutory conditions governing construction-loan agreements under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act were held to be read into every such agreement by operation of law, whether oral or written. Non-compliance with the writing and registration requirements, and failure to complete the building within the statutory period without reasonable excuse, were treated as punishable breaches under Section 18(4). The omission to expressly state a charge on the building and land was not treated as a separate offence, because that condition also stood incorporated by law. Conviction was sustained on the proven breaches, while the sentence was reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292557</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>