<?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>2014 (3) TMI 1206 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305657</link>
    <description>A sale deed procured by fraud and executed by a transferor lacking authority could be treated as void and subjected to corrective action by the authorities. The text states that objections based on the later Government Order being retrospective, or on the purchaser&#039;s claim of bona fide purchase, did not protect a transaction tainted by fraud. It further records the principle that fraud unravels everything, so the timing of the Government Order became immaterial once fraud and lack of authority were established. On that basis, the impugned action was upheld and the writ petition was rejected, leaving the petitioner to pursue remedies in the pending suit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:14:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=698994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 1206 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305657</link>
      <description>A sale deed procured by fraud and executed by a transferor lacking authority could be treated as void and subjected to corrective action by the authorities. The text states that objections based on the later Government Order being retrospective, or on the purchaser&#039;s claim of bona fide purchase, did not protect a transaction tainted by fraud. It further records the principle that fraud unravels everything, so the timing of the Government Order became immaterial once fraud and lack of authority were established. On that basis, the impugned action was upheld and the writ petition was rejected, leaving the petitioner to pursue remedies in the pending suit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>