https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293868 A National Savings Certificate issued in the trade name of a sole proprietorship could not be refused payment merely because the proprietor's personal name was not used. The Court rejected estoppel, finding no fraudulent or negligent representation by the postal authorities and no wilful conduct inducing the investment. It held that the naming error was a curable defect, and that Rule 17 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 did not bar correction where a lawful maturity amount had been withheld due to an irregular description of the holder. The certificate was directed to be corrected and the maturity proceeds released with interest, compensation and costs. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Mar 2021 09:44:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293868 A National Savings Certificate issued in the trade name of a sole proprietorship could not be refused payment merely because the proprietor's personal name was not used. The Court rejected estoppel, finding no fraudulent or negligent representation by the postal authorities and no wilful conduct inducing the investment. It held that the naming error was a curable defect, and that Rule 17 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 did not bar correction where a lawful maturity amount had been withheld due to an irregular description of the holder. The certificate was directed to be corrected and the maturity proceeds released with interest, compensation and costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293868