<?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>1993 (1) TMI 313 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297706</link>
    <description>An Official Trustee who demolished a trust building and proceeded with new construction without fresh High Court sanction committed a technical breach of trust because the work went beyond the earlier limited approval, but the conduct was not mala fide as it was based on reports that the building was dilapidated and the project was intended to improve trust income. The Official Trustee could not be made personally liable for the excess expenditure, since the statutory scheme does not treat him like a private trustee and there was no finding of dishonest conduct or personal default justifying such burden. The impugned personal liability was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Sep 2021 14:46:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=656159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (1) TMI 313 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297706</link>
      <description>An Official Trustee who demolished a trust building and proceeded with new construction without fresh High Court sanction committed a technical breach of trust because the work went beyond the earlier limited approval, but the conduct was not mala fide as it was based on reports that the building was dilapidated and the project was intended to improve trust income. The Official Trustee could not be made personally liable for the excess expenditure, since the statutory scheme does not treat him like a private trustee and there was no finding of dishonest conduct or personal default justifying such burden. The impugned personal liability was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>