<?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>2017 (6) TMI 1380 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305756</link>
    <description>A later trust deed and consequent conversion and transfer of deity properties were treated as invalid where the governing religious trust law required administration in accordance with the founder&#039;s ascertainable wishes and permitted conversion only for the trust&#039;s benefit, with prescribed approvals. The earlier deed barred sale or transfer, while the 2005 deed introduced contrary powers and the permissions thereafter depended on that disputed instrument. On the materials, this raised a prima facie case that the transactions ran against the original trust terms and statutory safeguards. The Court also found a prima facie case of fraud, misrepresentation and breach of trust, and directed an independent CBI investigation with protective action for the deity&#039;s properties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2022 21:07:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 1380 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305756</link>
      <description>A later trust deed and consequent conversion and transfer of deity properties were treated as invalid where the governing religious trust law required administration in accordance with the founder&#039;s ascertainable wishes and permitted conversion only for the trust&#039;s benefit, with prescribed approvals. The earlier deed barred sale or transfer, while the 2005 deed introduced contrary powers and the permissions thereafter depended on that disputed instrument. On the materials, this raised a prima facie case that the transactions ran against the original trust terms and statutory safeguards. The Court also found a prima facie case of fraud, misrepresentation and breach of trust, and directed an independent CBI investigation with protective action for the deity&#039;s properties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305756</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>