<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300233</link>
    <description>A unilateral cancellation of a registered sale deed is not registrable where the vendor acts alone, because cancellation of a completed bilateral transaction requires the participation and consent of both parties. Earlier rulings striking down Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, removed only the public-policy bar and did not create a right to register unilateral cancellation deeds. Reading Sections 17, 18, 32-A, 34 and 34-A of the Registration Act, 1908 with Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Court treated rescission as requiring bilateral action. A circular insisting on both parties&#039; signatures was therefore consistent with these principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2022 10:33:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=667529" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300233</link>
      <description>A unilateral cancellation of a registered sale deed is not registrable where the vendor acts alone, because cancellation of a completed bilateral transaction requires the participation and consent of both parties. Earlier rulings striking down Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, removed only the public-policy bar and did not create a right to register unilateral cancellation deeds. Reading Sections 17, 18, 32-A, 34 and 34-A of the Registration Act, 1908 with Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Court treated rescission as requiring bilateral action. A circular insisting on both parties&#039; signatures was therefore consistent with these principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>