<?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>2008 (12) TMI 816 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297762</link>
    <description>A court-appointed joint administrator may be removed when the appointing order is breached and impartiality is lost. The Bombay HC held that the application was maintainable because the Supreme Court&#039;s liberty to approach the High Court extended to interlocutory relief on complaints about the administrator&#039;s conduct. On the merits, the administrator was appointed only for day-to-day hospital management, but the record showed unilateral reports, comments on trust disputes, conduct aimed at influencing pending proceedings, and affidavits inconsistent with the record. Those acts transgressed the limits of authority and justified removal and substitution, while the regime of joint administration continued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2021 15:51:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=656367" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 816 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297762</link>
      <description>A court-appointed joint administrator may be removed when the appointing order is breached and impartiality is lost. The Bombay HC held that the application was maintainable because the Supreme Court&#039;s liberty to approach the High Court extended to interlocutory relief on complaints about the administrator&#039;s conduct. On the merits, the administrator was appointed only for day-to-day hospital management, but the record showed unilateral reports, comments on trust disputes, conduct aimed at influencing pending proceedings, and affidavits inconsistent with the record. Those acts transgressed the limits of authority and justified removal and substitution, while the regime of joint administration continued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>