<?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>1976 (1) TMI 181 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198167</link>
    <description>A joint Hindu family was held to have disrupted on 4 November 1945, as shown by documentary evidence, including a partnership deed, an income-tax endorsement, and an arbitration award and decree recording partition, together with the parties&#039; conduct and admissions. An acknowledgment can extend limitation against family members only if it is made by the manager of a subsisting joint family; once disruption occurs, the erstwhile karta loses representative authority. No general notice of severance to creditors is required, and the creditor must satisfy himself that the signatory still has authority. The acknowledgments therefore did not bind the former members or save the claim from limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:24:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (1) TMI 181 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198167</link>
      <description>A joint Hindu family was held to have disrupted on 4 November 1945, as shown by documentary evidence, including a partnership deed, an income-tax endorsement, and an arbitration award and decree recording partition, together with the parties&#039; conduct and admissions. An acknowledgment can extend limitation against family members only if it is made by the manager of a subsisting joint family; once disruption occurs, the erstwhile karta loses representative authority. No general notice of severance to creditors is required, and the creditor must satisfy himself that the signatory still has authority. The acknowledgments therefore did not bind the former members or save the claim from limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198167</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>