<?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>2007 (10) TMI 678 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195398</link>
    <description>A consent decree may be read as a contract with court seal, but it can also operate as an estoppel and be construed with the pleadings, surrounding circumstances and subsequent conduct where its language is ambiguous or incomplete. On that approach, the reference to offerings made to a poojari in his individual capacity had to be understood in light of temple custom, separate ceremonial acts and the parties&#039; later acknowledgments of equal worship rights. The evidence was not barred by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act in these circumstances. The decree therefore did not exclude the plaintiffs&#039; claim to the disputed worship and offering rights.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2024 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 678 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195398</link>
      <description>A consent decree may be read as a contract with court seal, but it can also operate as an estoppel and be construed with the pleadings, surrounding circumstances and subsequent conduct where its language is ambiguous or incomplete. On that approach, the reference to offerings made to a poojari in his individual capacity had to be understood in light of temple custom, separate ceremonial acts and the parties&#039; later acknowledgments of equal worship rights. The evidence was not barred by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act in these circumstances. The decree therefore did not exclude the plaintiffs&#039; claim to the disputed worship and offering rights.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195398</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>