<?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>1933 (8) TMI 3 - Privy Council</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193423</link>
    <description>A person in wrongful possession treated as an executor de son tort may be charged from the point when conversion can be inferred, and reasonable adverse presumptions may arise from withholding or suppressing documents and movables. Rents and royalties accruing up to the deceased&#039;s death were apportioned to the estate, and payments made by the defendant had to be credited first against the deceased&#039;s liabilities rather than his own claim. Compound interest was disallowed, and a supplemental decree for post-suit realisations was refused because the proceeding was not an administration suit and the further claim exceeded the framed scope. The receiver was ordered to be discharged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 1933 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:48:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=483422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1933 (8) TMI 3 - Privy Council</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193423</link>
      <description>A person in wrongful possession treated as an executor de son tort may be charged from the point when conversion can be inferred, and reasonable adverse presumptions may arise from withholding or suppressing documents and movables. Rents and royalties accruing up to the deceased&#039;s death were apportioned to the estate, and payments made by the defendant had to be credited first against the deceased&#039;s liabilities rather than his own claim. Compound interest was disallowed, and a supplemental decree for post-suit realisations was refused because the proceeding was not an administration suit and the further claim exceeded the framed scope. The receiver was ordered to be discharged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 1933 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193423</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>