<?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>1917 (8) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285894</link>
    <description>Service of a Section 12(2) notice under the Land Acquisition Act must comply strictly with the statutory mode of service, which requires service on the person named where practicable and resort to substituted service only if that person cannot be found. Service on the manager of the receiver&#039;s office was invalid because the receiver was absent and the manager was not shown to be authorised to accept service. Even on the assumption that the Code of Civil Procedure applied through Section 53, personal service remained the rule unless an agent was duly empowered in the manner required by procedural law. The appeal succeeded because the notice was not validly served.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 1917 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2020 11:24:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=602124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1917 (8) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285894</link>
      <description>Service of a Section 12(2) notice under the Land Acquisition Act must comply strictly with the statutory mode of service, which requires service on the person named where practicable and resort to substituted service only if that person cannot be found. Service on the manager of the receiver&#039;s office was invalid because the receiver was absent and the manager was not shown to be authorised to accept service. Even on the assumption that the Code of Civil Procedure applied through Section 53, personal service remained the rule unless an agent was duly empowered in the manner required by procedural law. The appeal succeeded because the notice was not validly served.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 1917 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285894</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>