<?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>1960 (9) TMI 111 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272407</link>
    <description>A statutory confirmation of a widow&#039;s adoption under the third proviso to section 23 of the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877 did not, by itself, make the adoption immune from civil scrutiny. Section 119 barred impeachment of acts, orders, or decisions of the Central Government, but the majority held that this bar did not extend to antecedent questions about the validity of the adoption itself, nor to matters outside what the Government was empowered to determine. The civil court could therefore examine the adoption&#039;s validity, while any succession claim under section 24 remained subject to the statute&#039;s conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 14:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (9) TMI 111 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272407</link>
      <description>A statutory confirmation of a widow&#039;s adoption under the third proviso to section 23 of the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877 did not, by itself, make the adoption immune from civil scrutiny. Section 119 barred impeachment of acts, orders, or decisions of the Central Government, but the majority held that this bar did not extend to antecedent questions about the validity of the adoption itself, nor to matters outside what the Government was empowered to determine. The civil court could therefore examine the adoption&#039;s validity, while any succession claim under section 24 remained subject to the statute&#039;s conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>