<?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>2016 (7) TMI 1670 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307184</link>
    <description>Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC permits appointment of a guardian ad litem not only for a person adjudged of unsound mind but also for a person found, after proper judicial inquiry, to be incapable of protecting his interests because of mental infirmity. The court must satisfy itself that the proposed guardian has no adverse interest and that the party cannot effectively conduct the litigation. On interaction with the respondent, the court noted incoherent and disjointed answers on basic matters of life, family, profession and affairs, which supported a finding of incapacity. The petitioner was therefore found entitled to appointment as guardian ad litem.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 09:41:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708593" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1670 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307184</link>
      <description>Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC permits appointment of a guardian ad litem not only for a person adjudged of unsound mind but also for a person found, after proper judicial inquiry, to be incapable of protecting his interests because of mental infirmity. The court must satisfy itself that the proposed guardian has no adverse interest and that the party cannot effectively conduct the litigation. On interaction with the respondent, the court noted incoherent and disjointed answers on basic matters of life, family, profession and affairs, which supported a finding of incapacity. The petitioner was therefore found entitled to appointment as guardian ad litem.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>