<?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>2010 (8) TMI 1142 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294808</link>
    <description>Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 gives an administrator pendente lite the powers of a general administrator, subject to Court control and the limited exception on distribution. The Court held that interim administration may extend to the deceased&#039;s entire estate, including controlling shareholdings and incidental shareholder rights, because such assets form part of the estate and may be preserved and managed pending adjudication. It also held that the administrator is not confined to collecting dividends and may exercise voting and other lawful rights necessary for protection of the estate. As the succession dispute involved competing interests, neutral independent joint administrators were appointed instead of any contesting party.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 May 2021 14:33:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=643463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 1142 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294808</link>
      <description>Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 gives an administrator pendente lite the powers of a general administrator, subject to Court control and the limited exception on distribution. The Court held that interim administration may extend to the deceased&#039;s entire estate, including controlling shareholdings and incidental shareholder rights, because such assets form part of the estate and may be preserved and managed pending adjudication. It also held that the administrator is not confined to collecting dividends and may exercise voting and other lawful rights necessary for protection of the estate. As the succession dispute involved competing interests, neutral independent joint administrators were appointed instead of any contesting party.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>