<?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>2013 (3) TMI 812 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280101</link>
    <description>Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 does not bar a civil suit unless the relief sought concerns questions the Act requires the designated authority to decide finally. The plaintiffs claimed hereditary Pujari rights, a right to perform Puja, and an injunction against interference; they did not seek a declaration on the existence of a public trust or the character of trust property. Pending registration proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner therefore did not oust civil court jurisdiction, and exclusion of that jurisdiction had to be strictly construed. The suit was held not barred, and the High Court&#039;s contrary view was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 14:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=567758" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 812 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280101</link>
      <description>Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 does not bar a civil suit unless the relief sought concerns questions the Act requires the designated authority to decide finally. The plaintiffs claimed hereditary Pujari rights, a right to perform Puja, and an injunction against interference; they did not seek a declaration on the existence of a public trust or the character of trust property. Pending registration proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner therefore did not oust civil court jurisdiction, and exclusion of that jurisdiction had to be strictly construed. The suit was held not barred, and the High Court&#039;s contrary view was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280101</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>