<?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>1964 (3) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169317</link>
    <description>A criminal appeal against conviction and imprisonment abates on the appellant&#039;s death, because the right of appeal is personal and substitution is permitted only where the estate is directly and legally affected. The Court distinguished the limited exception for sentences of fine, where the liability survives against the estate, and declined to extend that exception to special leave appeals against imprisonment. A contingent claim to arrears of salary, dependent on future administrative action, was held too remote to confer a sufficient legal interest. Legal representatives were therefore not entitled to continue the appeal, and leave to prosecute it was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2015 10:43:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (3) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169317</link>
      <description>A criminal appeal against conviction and imprisonment abates on the appellant&#039;s death, because the right of appeal is personal and substitution is permitted only where the estate is directly and legally affected. The Court distinguished the limited exception for sentences of fine, where the liability survives against the estate, and declined to extend that exception to special leave appeals against imprisonment. A contingent claim to arrears of salary, dependent on future administrative action, was held too remote to confer a sufficient legal interest. Legal representatives were therefore not entitled to continue the appeal, and leave to prosecute it was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>