<?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>1958 (9) TMI 80 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168476</link>
    <description>A suit challenging a waqf notification and Board action fell within section 5(2) of the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936, because &quot;person interested in a waqf&quot; was construed broadly to include a person interested in property held to be a waqf; the suit was therefore barred by limitation. Section 15 of the Limitation Act did not extend time, as the earlier order did not stay institution of the present suit. The suit was also incompetent for want of prior notice under section 53, since that provision required notice before suing the Board in respect of acts done under the Act and the disputed notification covered the relevant darga property. The preliminary objections succeeded and relief was unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2015 13:03:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378130" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (9) TMI 80 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168476</link>
      <description>A suit challenging a waqf notification and Board action fell within section 5(2) of the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936, because &quot;person interested in a waqf&quot; was construed broadly to include a person interested in property held to be a waqf; the suit was therefore barred by limitation. Section 15 of the Limitation Act did not extend time, as the earlier order did not stay institution of the present suit. The suit was also incompetent for want of prior notice under section 53, since that provision required notice before suing the Board in respect of acts done under the Act and the disputed notification covered the relevant darga property. The preliminary objections succeeded and relief was unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>