<?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>1969 (2) TMI 183 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272604</link>
    <description>A joint Hindu family firm was treated as a body of individuals, not an individual, for a Pakistan notification that exempted only cash deposits made by an individual, so the bank balance did not fall within that exception. On the second issue, the debt was regarded as locally situated at the debtor&#039;s place, and for an involuntary assignment the lex situs governed the effect of the Pakistan evacuee property law. Vesting of the debt in the Custodian therefore discharged the debtor, and the liability could not be enforced again in India. The appeal succeeded, the High Court decree was set aside, and the claim dismissal was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 May 2018 14:58:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519725" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (2) TMI 183 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272604</link>
      <description>A joint Hindu family firm was treated as a body of individuals, not an individual, for a Pakistan notification that exempted only cash deposits made by an individual, so the bank balance did not fall within that exception. On the second issue, the debt was regarded as locally situated at the debtor&#039;s place, and for an involuntary assignment the lex situs governed the effect of the Pakistan evacuee property law. Vesting of the debt in the Custodian therefore discharged the debtor, and the liability could not be enforced again in India. The appeal succeeded, the High Court decree was set aside, and the claim dismissal was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>