<?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>1994 (6) TMI 218 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199597</link>
    <description>The Second Appeal was dismissed, affirming lower courts&#039; findings that the alleged adoption did not occur. The judgment emphasized that the factum of adoption was not satisfactorily proved and highlighted legal principles regarding a widow&#039;s power to adopt under Hindu Law. Despite some discrepancies in previous decisions, the appellate judge was bound by the rulings of the Bombay High Court. The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:28:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (6) TMI 218 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199597</link>
      <description>The Second Appeal was dismissed, affirming lower courts&#039; findings that the alleged adoption did not occur. The judgment emphasized that the factum of adoption was not satisfactorily proved and highlighted legal principles regarding a widow&#039;s power to adopt under Hindu Law. Despite some discrepancies in previous decisions, the appellate judge was bound by the rulings of the Bombay High Court. The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199597</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>