<?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>1959 (4) TMI 42 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292340</link>
    <description>The Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 was treated as validly applying to a religious trust situated in Bihar, even though the trust had been subject to a scheme framed by a court outside Bihar and held property beyond the State. The statute was held to operate on the trust, its trustees and administrators within Bihar, and to competently exclude such trusts from Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Provisions for supervision, control and supersession of committees were regarded as incidental to trust administration, not as an impermissible interference with outside court jurisdiction. The challenge based on extra-territorial operation and jurisdictional conflict therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2020 12:00:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (4) TMI 42 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292340</link>
      <description>The Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 was treated as validly applying to a religious trust situated in Bihar, even though the trust had been subject to a scheme framed by a court outside Bihar and held property beyond the State. The statute was held to operate on the trust, its trustees and administrators within Bihar, and to competently exclude such trusts from Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Provisions for supervision, control and supersession of committees were regarded as incidental to trust administration, not as an impermissible interference with outside court jurisdiction. The challenge based on extra-territorial operation and jurisdictional conflict therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>