<?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 (8) TMI 72 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171414</link>
    <description>Municipal officers were held to have valid delegated authority to seize and impound stray cattle under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, because the Commissioner could authorise officers by designation and direct control did not require personal presence at the scene. The term &quot;abandoned&quot; in the seizure provision was read in context to mean cattle left unattended, not necessarily ownerless, so cattle rounded up while roaming could lawfully be impounded. Because the seizure was authorised by statute, no right of private defence of property arose; in any event, such resistance was barred where public servants act in good faith under colour of office. The conviction was therefore upheld and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:11:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390800" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (8) TMI 72 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171414</link>
      <description>Municipal officers were held to have valid delegated authority to seize and impound stray cattle under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, because the Commissioner could authorise officers by designation and direct control did not require personal presence at the scene. The term &quot;abandoned&quot; in the seizure provision was read in context to mean cattle left unattended, not necessarily ownerless, so cattle rounded up while roaming could lawfully be impounded. Because the seizure was authorised by statute, no right of private defence of property arose; in any event, such resistance was barred where public servants act in good faith under colour of office. The conviction was therefore upheld and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171414</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>