<?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>1938 (7) TMI 13 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273026</link>
    <description>Mere book entries crediting a temple or deity did not, by themselves, establish trust property or an endowment excluded from an insolvent estate. The evidence showed no allocation of a specific fund, no separate investment, no vesting in trustees, and no clear intention to dedicate property in trust or as debutter property. The entries and surrounding conduct were instead consistent with a debtor-creditor arrangement on special terms, with interest credited in the manner of an ordinary business account. The claim to exclude the sums from the divisible estate therefore failed, and the insolvency court&#039;s earlier order in favour of the appellants was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 1938 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 17:40:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1938 (7) TMI 13 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273026</link>
      <description>Mere book entries crediting a temple or deity did not, by themselves, establish trust property or an endowment excluded from an insolvent estate. The evidence showed no allocation of a specific fund, no separate investment, no vesting in trustees, and no clear intention to dedicate property in trust or as debutter property. The entries and surrounding conduct were instead consistent with a debtor-creditor arrangement on special terms, with interest credited in the manner of an ordinary business account. The claim to exclude the sums from the divisible estate therefore failed, and the insolvency court&#039;s earlier order in favour of the appellants was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 1938 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>