<?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>2007 (1) TMI 551 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171291</link>
    <description>Chapter X of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was held to impose a mandatory duty on the State Government to constitute a committee of management once the statutory conditions under Section 52 were met; the power under Section 53 was not discretionary, and the exemption clause could not defeat the scheme. The Court also held that the temple&#039;s character could not be reopened, because earlier litigation had conclusively found it to be a Jain temple. Res judicata and estoppel barred the State from rearguing that it was a Hindu temple. The Division Bench&#039;s modifications were set aside and the Single Judge&#039;s directions were restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 551 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171291</link>
      <description>Chapter X of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was held to impose a mandatory duty on the State Government to constitute a committee of management once the statutory conditions under Section 52 were met; the power under Section 53 was not discretionary, and the exemption clause could not defeat the scheme. The Court also held that the temple&#039;s character could not be reopened, because earlier litigation had conclusively found it to be a Jain temple. Res judicata and estoppel barred the State from rearguing that it was a Hindu temple. The Division Bench&#039;s modifications were set aside and the Single Judge&#039;s directions were restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>