<?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 (9) TMI 997 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428052</link>
    <description>Anchorage charges accruing after confirmation of an admiralty sale were not treated as pre-sale encumbrances within the expression &quot;free from all encumbrances&quot;. The Supreme Court held that section 8 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 vested the vessel in the purchaser free of encumbrances, liens, attachments, registered mortgages and similar charges, but the sale terms also required the purchaser to bear charges, dues, tariffs and taxes from the date of sanction of sale. As the anchorage charges arose on a post-sale day-count basis, they remained payable by the purchaser, and the challenge to the Port Trust demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2022 08:24:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=691514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 997 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428052</link>
      <description>Anchorage charges accruing after confirmation of an admiralty sale were not treated as pre-sale encumbrances within the expression &quot;free from all encumbrances&quot;. The Supreme Court held that section 8 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 vested the vessel in the purchaser free of encumbrances, liens, attachments, registered mortgages and similar charges, but the sale terms also required the purchaser to bear charges, dues, tariffs and taxes from the date of sanction of sale. As the anchorage charges arose on a post-sale day-count basis, they remained payable by the purchaser, and the challenge to the Port Trust demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428052</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>