<?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>2009 (9) TMI 1032 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199924</link>
    <description>A bishop&#039;s tenure was governed by the ten-year term accepted at appointment and confirmed by the Synod; the constitutional retirement age could not override that agreed term, so continuation until 65 was rejected. A suit against unincorporated church bodies was also held not maintainable because the mandatory representative procedure under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was not followed, and no permission had been obtained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:05:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 1032 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199924</link>
      <description>A bishop&#039;s tenure was governed by the ten-year term accepted at appointment and confirmed by the Synod; the constitutional retirement age could not override that agreed term, so continuation until 65 was rejected. A suit against unincorporated church bodies was also held not maintainable because the mandatory representative procedure under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was not followed, and no permission had been obtained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>