<?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>1996 (5) TMI 431 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196702</link>
    <description>Substantial compliance with pleadings is sufficient where a petition under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act clearly sets out the line of succession and the substance of the claim to hereditary office. A rigid insistence on express pleading of the precise custom of succession is unwarranted when the pleaded facts and evidence show devolution by hereditary right or nomination by the existing office-holder and no prejudice is demonstrated. The Tribunal&#039;s acceptance of a Guru-to-Chela succession was therefore supportable on the material, and the petition was not incompetent for want of sufficient pleadings; the petitioner was entitled to be treated as a hereditary office-holder.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 17:03:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499474" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 431 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196702</link>
      <description>Substantial compliance with pleadings is sufficient where a petition under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act clearly sets out the line of succession and the substance of the claim to hereditary office. A rigid insistence on express pleading of the precise custom of succession is unwarranted when the pleaded facts and evidence show devolution by hereditary right or nomination by the existing office-holder and no prejudice is demonstrated. The Tribunal&#039;s acceptance of a Guru-to-Chela succession was therefore supportable on the material, and the petition was not incompetent for want of sufficient pleadings; the petitioner was entitled to be treated as a hereditary office-holder.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>