<?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>1956 (4) TMI 77 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311381</link>
    <description>Section 18 of the Bengal Court of Wards Act was treated as conferring a judgment-based power to sanction transactions for the benefit of the property and advantage of the ward, and the Court would not reopen that assessment on mere merits if the authority had honestly applied its mind and obtained proper sanction in substance. On that basis, the 1915 and 1917 deeds were held valid and binding on the estate. The 1937 deed postponing minimum royalty, however, lacked valid sanction and was void, but that covenant was severable; the remaining lease terms, having been sanctioned in their essential particulars, continued to operate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 17:58:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=736407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (4) TMI 77 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311381</link>
      <description>Section 18 of the Bengal Court of Wards Act was treated as conferring a judgment-based power to sanction transactions for the benefit of the property and advantage of the ward, and the Court would not reopen that assessment on mere merits if the authority had honestly applied its mind and obtained proper sanction in substance. On that basis, the 1915 and 1917 deeds were held valid and binding on the estate. The 1937 deed postponing minimum royalty, however, lacked valid sanction and was void, but that covenant was severable; the remaining lease terms, having been sanctioned in their essential particulars, continued to operate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>