<?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>1969 (8) TMI 97 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301282</link>
    <description>On State integration, pre-merger contractual liabilities of Bundi State survived and devolved on Rajasthan because the merger covenant and continuing Rajasthan laws transferred assets and liabilities to the successor State; the agreement was treated as a governmental obligation, and a later letter also supported acceptance of the claim. For limitation, the suit for unpaid annual instalments under a written contract was governed by Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908, not by provisions for rent or recurring rights. The government letter did not clearly admit liability for the specific instalment due on 1-4-1954, so it was not an acknowledgment for that amount and the decree was reduced accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:12:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=673770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (8) TMI 97 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301282</link>
      <description>On State integration, pre-merger contractual liabilities of Bundi State survived and devolved on Rajasthan because the merger covenant and continuing Rajasthan laws transferred assets and liabilities to the successor State; the agreement was treated as a governmental obligation, and a later letter also supported acceptance of the claim. For limitation, the suit for unpaid annual instalments under a written contract was governed by Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908, not by provisions for rent or recurring rights. The government letter did not clearly admit liability for the specific instalment due on 1-4-1954, so it was not an acknowledgment for that amount and the decree was reduced accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>