<?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>1926 (2) TMI 2 - Calcutta High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289674</link>
    <description>A sale under the Public Demands Recovery Act can be challenged in civil court only on proof of fraud; mere irregularities in the certificate, service of notice, or sale proclamation, without substantial injury, do not justify setting aside the sale. The certificate was treated as valid despite blank spaces in the printed form because the demand particulars were complete, and the section 7 notice was held duly served notwithstanding use of a lithographic or stamped signature. The suit also failed because fraud was not proved, and the challenge based only on irregularity was not maintainable. Limitation ran from the date the sales were finally restored and became conclusive, so the suit was held within time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 1926 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1926 (2) TMI 2 - Calcutta High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289674</link>
      <description>A sale under the Public Demands Recovery Act can be challenged in civil court only on proof of fraud; mere irregularities in the certificate, service of notice, or sale proclamation, without substantial injury, do not justify setting aside the sale. The certificate was treated as valid despite blank spaces in the printed form because the demand particulars were complete, and the section 7 notice was held duly served notwithstanding use of a lithographic or stamped signature. The suit also failed because fraud was not proved, and the challenge based only on irregularity was not maintainable. Limitation ran from the date the sales were finally restored and became conclusive, so the suit was held within time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 1926 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>