<?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>1953 (9) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285667</link>
    <description>The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 was examined against Articles 25, 26, 27, 28 and 282 and was found not to impose an unconstitutional State interference with matters of religion; administration of public religious endowments and expenditure for that purpose were treated as compatible with the constitutional scheme. Hereditary trusteeship was held to be protected as an interest in property under Article 19(1)(f), so scheme provisions that reduced hereditary trustees to a nominal role and substantially displaced their rights were void to that extent. The challenge to the Act therefore failed, but the impugned scheme provisions required modification insofar as they abridged protected hereditary rights.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:47:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (9) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285667</link>
      <description>The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 was examined against Articles 25, 26, 27, 28 and 282 and was found not to impose an unconstitutional State interference with matters of religion; administration of public religious endowments and expenditure for that purpose were treated as compatible with the constitutional scheme. Hereditary trusteeship was held to be protected as an interest in property under Article 19(1)(f), so scheme provisions that reduced hereditary trustees to a nominal role and substantially displaced their rights were void to that extent. The challenge to the Act therefore failed, but the impugned scheme provisions required modification insofar as they abridged protected hereditary rights.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285667</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>