<?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>1928 (8) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290182</link>
    <description>A statutory agriculturist privilege is personal and cannot be used by a defendant firm merely because some partners individually qualify as agriculturists. The Court treated the Dekkhan Agriculturists&#039; Relief Act as conferring a personal defence, distinguished between the firm as a sued business entity and the separate status of its partners, and read the term &quot;person&quot; in context as not extending the privilege to a firm on that basis alone. The firm could invoke the protection only if it independently satisfied the statutory description in its own right. The Court therefore upheld jurisdiction to try the suit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2020 11:04:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1928 (8) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290182</link>
      <description>A statutory agriculturist privilege is personal and cannot be used by a defendant firm merely because some partners individually qualify as agriculturists. The Court treated the Dekkhan Agriculturists&#039; Relief Act as conferring a personal defence, distinguished between the firm as a sued business entity and the separate status of its partners, and read the term &quot;person&quot; in context as not extending the privilege to a firm on that basis alone. The firm could invoke the protection only if it independently satisfied the statutory description in its own right. The Court therefore upheld jurisdiction to try the suit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290182</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>