<?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>1951 (5) TMI 21 - Allahabad High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291037</link>
    <description>A petitioner seeking writ relief must disclose all material facts with full candour, especially in ex parte proceedings; material suppression and misleading omissions can justify refusal of Article 226 relief. The Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 was described as capable of applying in appropriate circumstances to property connected with an incorporated company, and the challenge based on lack of jurisdiction was treated as at most arguable rather than patent. The Act was also upheld against constitutional attack under Articles 14, 19(f) and 31, the territorial and evacuee-based classifications being found to rest on a reasonable historical basis and the restrictions on property and management to be justified in the public interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:07:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (5) TMI 21 - Allahabad High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291037</link>
      <description>A petitioner seeking writ relief must disclose all material facts with full candour, especially in ex parte proceedings; material suppression and misleading omissions can justify refusal of Article 226 relief. The Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 was described as capable of applying in appropriate circumstances to property connected with an incorporated company, and the challenge based on lack of jurisdiction was treated as at most arguable rather than patent. The Act was also upheld against constitutional attack under Articles 14, 19(f) and 31, the territorial and evacuee-based classifications being found to rest on a reasonable historical basis and the restrictions on property and management to be justified in the public interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>