<?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>1939 (2) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292635</link>
    <description>A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is not conclusive if it misstates a company acquisition as a public purpose, but the defect does not vitiate the proceedings where the true purpose is clear and no real prejudice is shown. The materials also supported the finding that the objector had notice of the Section 5-A hearing date, so that factual conclusion was not displaced. On the society issue, the memorandum and bye-laws showed religious, educational, charitable and beneficial objects, and registration under the Societies Registration Act was not defeated by alleged inconsistencies in the bye-laws or an unparticularised claim that property belonged only to a guru. The challenge to the acquisition largely failed, but the adverse declaration on the society&#039;s legal status could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 1939 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2021 11:11:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=631902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1939 (2) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292635</link>
      <description>A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is not conclusive if it misstates a company acquisition as a public purpose, but the defect does not vitiate the proceedings where the true purpose is clear and no real prejudice is shown. The materials also supported the finding that the objector had notice of the Section 5-A hearing date, so that factual conclusion was not displaced. On the society issue, the memorandum and bye-laws showed religious, educational, charitable and beneficial objects, and registration under the Societies Registration Act was not defeated by alleged inconsistencies in the bye-laws or an unparticularised claim that property belonged only to a guru. The challenge to the acquisition largely failed, but the adverse declaration on the society&#039;s legal status could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 1939 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292635</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>