<?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>2005 (10) TMI 592 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283922</link>
    <description>In community-certificate verification proceedings, the claimant bears the burden of proving Scheduled Caste status, and the expert agency report operates as conclusive material within the statutory scheme. On the facts, the Scrutiny Committee found that the claimant had been born and brought up as a Christian, had never converted to Hinduism, and had falsely projected herself as a member of the Hindu Pulayan Scheduled Caste; the certificate was therefore cancelled and that determination was upheld. The appellate court also declined interference because the findings were factual, based on evidence, and showed no perversity, arbitrariness, or lack of evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:44:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=591507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 592 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283922</link>
      <description>In community-certificate verification proceedings, the claimant bears the burden of proving Scheduled Caste status, and the expert agency report operates as conclusive material within the statutory scheme. On the facts, the Scrutiny Committee found that the claimant had been born and brought up as a Christian, had never converted to Hinduism, and had falsely projected herself as a member of the Hindu Pulayan Scheduled Caste; the certificate was therefore cancelled and that determination was upheld. The appellate court also declined interference because the findings were factual, based on evidence, and showed no perversity, arbitrariness, or lack of evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>