<?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>2011 (6) TMI 1008 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299130</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed both second appeals, affirming the lower courts&#039; decisions. The court found no substantial questions of law for interference, emphasizing material alterations in the sale agreement and valid termination of tenancy. It directed refund of the sale consideration deposited by the appellant and recorded an agreement to adjust the advance amount towards arrears of rent or damages.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2021 10:21:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 1008 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299130</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed both second appeals, affirming the lower courts&#039; decisions. The court found no substantial questions of law for interference, emphasizing material alterations in the sale agreement and valid termination of tenancy. It directed refund of the sale consideration deposited by the appellant and recorded an agreement to adjust the advance amount towards arrears of rent or damages.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299130</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>