<?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>1952 (9) TMI 41 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277405</link>
    <description>The Orissa Court of Wards Act required an enquiry, notice, recommendation and Government satisfaction that the proprietor had persistently failed to discharge legal duties and was thereby incapable or unfit to manage the estate. On the materials available, the alleged defaults did not establish the persistent legal breach contemplated by the Act, the Collector&#039;s report was largely favourable, and the recommendation was only perfunctory. The Government also failed to place before the Court the material said to justify the declaration. The Court held that the statutory power was exercised without relevant and sufficient material, that the necessary causal link between default and incapacity was not shown, and that the action was not bona fide. The declaration was quashed and possession was directed to be restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2018 16:17:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (9) TMI 41 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277405</link>
      <description>The Orissa Court of Wards Act required an enquiry, notice, recommendation and Government satisfaction that the proprietor had persistently failed to discharge legal duties and was thereby incapable or unfit to manage the estate. On the materials available, the alleged defaults did not establish the persistent legal breach contemplated by the Act, the Collector&#039;s report was largely favourable, and the recommendation was only perfunctory. The Government also failed to place before the Court the material said to justify the declaration. The Court held that the statutory power was exercised without relevant and sufficient material, that the necessary causal link between default and incapacity was not shown, and that the action was not bona fide. The declaration was quashed and possession was directed to be restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>