<?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 (10) TMI 488 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238033</link>
    <description>A certificate issued by the Administrator General under Section 29 of the Administrator&#039;s General Act, 1963 is not equivalent to a court-issued succession certificate because it rests on a limited enquiry and affidavits, while a succession certificate follows a fuller judicial and protects against rival claims. Where the governing payment rules require legal authority for release of arrear pension, the claimant cannot substitute the Administrator General&#039;s certificate for a succession certificate. The insistence on a court-issued succession certificate was therefore lawful, and the challenge to withholding of arrear pension failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=308661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 488 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238033</link>
      <description>A certificate issued by the Administrator General under Section 29 of the Administrator&#039;s General Act, 1963 is not equivalent to a court-issued succession certificate because it rests on a limited enquiry and affidavits, while a succession certificate follows a fuller judicial and protects against rival claims. Where the governing payment rules require legal authority for release of arrear pension, the claimant cannot substitute the Administrator General&#039;s certificate for a succession certificate. The insistence on a court-issued succession certificate was therefore lawful, and the challenge to withholding of arrear pension failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>