<?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>2022 (6) TMI 990 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424149</link>
    <description>A transferee of leasehold rights who accepts the transfer memorandum, sale certificate and lease deed cannot seek refund of amounts paid towards the transfer while avoiding the liabilities attached to the lease. The lease covenants, read with the transfer documents, required the transferee to step into the earlier lessee&#039;s position and discharge past rent and interest, and insolvency-related auction of the asset did not displace those contractual burdens. Writ jurisdiction was held unsuitable for undoing a concluded contractual arrangement or recovering money paid in performance of it, especially where the underlying instruments were not challenged. The principle of approbation and reprobation barred reliance on the transfer&#039;s benefit while rejecting its burdens.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2022 10:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=682872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 990 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424149</link>
      <description>A transferee of leasehold rights who accepts the transfer memorandum, sale certificate and lease deed cannot seek refund of amounts paid towards the transfer while avoiding the liabilities attached to the lease. The lease covenants, read with the transfer documents, required the transferee to step into the earlier lessee&#039;s position and discharge past rent and interest, and insolvency-related auction of the asset did not displace those contractual burdens. Writ jurisdiction was held unsuitable for undoing a concluded contractual arrangement or recovering money paid in performance of it, especially where the underlying instruments were not challenged. The principle of approbation and reprobation barred reliance on the transfer&#039;s benefit while rejecting its burdens.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>