<?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>1970 (5) TMI 71 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309481</link>
    <description>A partnership deed that purported to transfer an undivided share in a transport route permit without the granting authority&#039;s permission was treated as illegal because a route permit cannot be transferred except with such permission. The deed was described as one and indivisible, so the illegality attached to the whole agreement where part of the consideration was void. On that basis, the arrangement was held incapable of supporting a suit for dissolution of partnership or rendition of accounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2023 15:57:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=725174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (5) TMI 71 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309481</link>
      <description>A partnership deed that purported to transfer an undivided share in a transport route permit without the granting authority&#039;s permission was treated as illegal because a route permit cannot be transferred except with such permission. The deed was described as one and indivisible, so the illegality attached to the whole agreement where part of the consideration was void. On that basis, the arrangement was held incapable of supporting a suit for dissolution of partnership or rendition of accounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>