<?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>2013 (9) TMI 73 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236640</link>
    <description>Compassionate appointment under the National Coal Wage Agreement VI must be construed strictly according to the scheme, because it is a limited concession and not a heritable right. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 creates legitimacy only for limited purposes and cannot be used to expand the dependant category beyond the scheme&#039;s express terms. Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not control the meaning of &quot;son&quot; in this context. The expression &quot;son&quot; in Clause 9.3.3, read with the separate reference to &quot;legally adopted son,&quot; was treated as limited to legitimate sons, so an illegitimate son born from a void second marriage was not included.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2013 14:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199047" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 73 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236640</link>
      <description>Compassionate appointment under the National Coal Wage Agreement VI must be construed strictly according to the scheme, because it is a limited concession and not a heritable right. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 creates legitimacy only for limited purposes and cannot be used to expand the dependant category beyond the scheme&#039;s express terms. Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not control the meaning of &quot;son&quot; in this context. The expression &quot;son&quot; in Clause 9.3.3, read with the separate reference to &quot;legally adopted son,&quot; was treated as limited to legitimate sons, so an illegitimate son born from a void second marriage was not included.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>