<?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>2012 (7) TMI 1130 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296069</link>
    <description>A transfer made in breach of foreign exchange restrictions does not become void unless the statute expressly so provides, and a lease executed beyond a trustee&#039;s power is voidable at the instance of the trust, not automatically invalid. On the facts, no material showed that the lease consideration or object offended Section 23 of the Contract Act, and the trust had not avoided the transaction, so the lease deeds were treated as valid and enforceable. An unstamped and unregistered family arrangement could be used only for collateral purposes; because it did not itself prove delivery or continued possession, and no independent evidence filled the gap, the claim for permanent injunction failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2021 16:45:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 1130 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296069</link>
      <description>A transfer made in breach of foreign exchange restrictions does not become void unless the statute expressly so provides, and a lease executed beyond a trustee&#039;s power is voidable at the instance of the trust, not automatically invalid. On the facts, no material showed that the lease consideration or object offended Section 23 of the Contract Act, and the trust had not avoided the transaction, so the lease deeds were treated as valid and enforceable. An unstamped and unregistered family arrangement could be used only for collateral purposes; because it did not itself prove delivery or continued possession, and no independent evidence filled the gap, the claim for permanent injunction failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>