<?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>2008 (1) TMI 916 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183297</link>
    <description>Dowry under the statute requires property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with marriage; customary presents or social payments are excluded unless shown to be marriage consideration. On the facts, the alleged articles were not shown to have been demanded as dowry, so they could not sustain the accusation. The text also stresses that a judicial order interfering with discharge must disclose reasons, because reasons show application of mind and permit appellate scrutiny. The High Court&#039;s interference was unsustainable where it relied on presumptive observations without explaining why the reasoned discharge order should be disturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2016 11:29:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 916 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183297</link>
      <description>Dowry under the statute requires property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with marriage; customary presents or social payments are excluded unless shown to be marriage consideration. On the facts, the alleged articles were not shown to have been demanded as dowry, so they could not sustain the accusation. The text also stresses that a judicial order interfering with discharge must disclose reasons, because reasons show application of mind and permit appellate scrutiny. The High Court&#039;s interference was unsustainable where it relied on presumptive observations without explaining why the reasoned discharge order should be disturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>