<?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>2004 (9) TMI 706 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307163</link>
    <description>Order XXXII Rule 15 applies not only to a person formally adjudged of unsound mind, but also to a person found on inquiry to be incapable, by reason of mental infirmity, of protecting his interests in litigation. The provision distinguishes mental infirmity from unsoundness of mind and does not require a formal enquiry under the lunacy law before protective representation is ordered. On the materials considered, including medical opinion and evidence of markedly low intellectual functioning, the party was held unable to safeguard his interests, so appointment of a guardian ad litem was warranted and the proceedings were directed to continue through that guardian.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:26:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 706 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307163</link>
      <description>Order XXXII Rule 15 applies not only to a person formally adjudged of unsound mind, but also to a person found on inquiry to be incapable, by reason of mental infirmity, of protecting his interests in litigation. The provision distinguishes mental infirmity from unsoundness of mind and does not require a formal enquiry under the lunacy law before protective representation is ordered. On the materials considered, including medical opinion and evidence of markedly low intellectual functioning, the party was held unable to safeguard his interests, so appointment of a guardian ad litem was warranted and the proceedings were directed to continue through that guardian.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307163</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>