<?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>2016 (10) TMI 1385 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309736</link>
    <description>Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act only subordinates a pendente lite transfer to the result of the suit; it does not restrain alienation, make the transfer void, or carry the coercive consequences of an injunction. Registration of a pending suit is similarly only a notice mechanism and cannot replace interim injunctive relief. In applications for temporary injunction against pendente lite transfers, the ordinary tests of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience continue to apply, without any universal requirement to first prove that Section 52 is inadequate. Courts may impose protective conditions, but only as supplements, not substitutes, for injunctions. On conflicting coordinate-Bench decisions, the earlier view prevails unless later explained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2023 08:42:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 1385 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309736</link>
      <description>Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act only subordinates a pendente lite transfer to the result of the suit; it does not restrain alienation, make the transfer void, or carry the coercive consequences of an injunction. Registration of a pending suit is similarly only a notice mechanism and cannot replace interim injunctive relief. In applications for temporary injunction against pendente lite transfers, the ordinary tests of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience continue to apply, without any universal requirement to first prove that Section 52 is inadequate. Courts may impose protective conditions, but only as supplements, not substitutes, for injunctions. On conflicting coordinate-Bench decisions, the earlier view prevails unless later explained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>