<?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>1969 (1) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5161</link>
    <description>Where dues are recoverable as arrears of land revenue, the recovery machinery under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act does not, without clear words, require the Collector to exhaust every prior mode under section 279(a) to (e) before proceeding against immovable property. The challenge on that ground failed. An auction sale will also not be set aside unless material irregularity or mistake in conducting the sale is shown to have caused substantial injury; here, the complaints about sale of movables after sufficient realisation and alleged denial of relief under rule 285-H were not properly established. The recovery proceedings and sale were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (1) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5161</link>
      <description>Where dues are recoverable as arrears of land revenue, the recovery machinery under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act does not, without clear words, require the Collector to exhaust every prior mode under section 279(a) to (e) before proceeding against immovable property. The challenge on that ground failed. An auction sale will also not be set aside unless material irregularity or mistake in conducting the sale is shown to have caused substantial injury; here, the complaints about sale of movables after sufficient realisation and alleged denial of relief under rule 285-H were not properly established. The recovery proceedings and sale were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>