<?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>1961 (1) TMI 74 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186987</link>
    <description>The Industrial Trust Fund was held to be a governmental department rather than a separate corporation because it was administered by civil servants under Government control and lacked indicia of corporate existence such as perpetual succession, a seal, or independent power to contract and sue. As the Fund was treated as money set apart by the Government for specified purposes, the State Government was the real creditor. Accordingly, the special limitation period applicable to suits by or on behalf of a State Government applied, and the debt was not barred by limitation. The objection based on the alleged corporate character of the Fund therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 11:08:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443866" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (1) TMI 74 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186987</link>
      <description>The Industrial Trust Fund was held to be a governmental department rather than a separate corporation because it was administered by civil servants under Government control and lacked indicia of corporate existence such as perpetual succession, a seal, or independent power to contract and sue. As the Fund was treated as money set apart by the Government for specified purposes, the State Government was the real creditor. Accordingly, the special limitation period applicable to suits by or on behalf of a State Government applied, and the debt was not barred by limitation. The objection based on the alleged corporate character of the Fund therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>