<?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>2010 (11) TMI 936 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171063</link>
    <description>An exemption for &quot;Wakf property&quot; in an acquisition notification was confined to its legally accepted Muslim-law meaning, not a broad charitable dedication. On the facts, the land was found to have been dedicated as a Hindu charitable trust for educational purposes rather than as Wakf property, supported by the founder&#039;s title history, subsequent descriptions of the institution, and the surrounding ceremonies and circumstances. The claim to exemption therefore failed, and the acquisition was upheld. Relief was also denied because the claimants had not approached the court with clean hands and had suppressed material litigation history and earlier adverse proceedings concerning the same exemption claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 936 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171063</link>
      <description>An exemption for &quot;Wakf property&quot; in an acquisition notification was confined to its legally accepted Muslim-law meaning, not a broad charitable dedication. On the facts, the land was found to have been dedicated as a Hindu charitable trust for educational purposes rather than as Wakf property, supported by the founder&#039;s title history, subsequent descriptions of the institution, and the surrounding ceremonies and circumstances. The claim to exemption therefore failed, and the acquisition was upheld. Relief was also denied because the claimants had not approached the court with clean hands and had suppressed material litigation history and earlier adverse proceedings concerning the same exemption claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>