<?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>2017 (12) TMI 1809 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297037</link>
    <description>A sanctioned scheme of arrangement operates in rem, but it does not override a lessor&#039;s contractual rights where the lease prohibits assignment without prior written consent and makes recognition dependent on the lessor&#039;s choice. The court distinguished authorities on transfer by operation of law and held that, despite successive corporate changes, no enforceable right arose to compel the landlord to recognise the petitioner as lessee. The lessor&#039;s demand for consideration to grant such recognition was treated as a matter within the contractual field and not per se arbitrary, so no interference under Article 226 was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2021 21:16:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1809 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297037</link>
      <description>A sanctioned scheme of arrangement operates in rem, but it does not override a lessor&#039;s contractual rights where the lease prohibits assignment without prior written consent and makes recognition dependent on the lessor&#039;s choice. The court distinguished authorities on transfer by operation of law and held that, despite successive corporate changes, no enforceable right arose to compel the landlord to recognise the petitioner as lessee. The lessor&#039;s demand for consideration to grant such recognition was treated as a matter within the contractual field and not per se arbitrary, so no interference under Article 226 was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>