<?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>2005 (3) TMI 830 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313679</link>
    <description>Pending probate proceedings, the probate court may grant interim protective orders to preserve the deceased&#039;s estate where necessity is shown. The court treated majority shareholding and the control incidents attached to it as part of the estate capable of limited protection, while recognising that the estate may include property discovered later. It also noted that protective relief should not paralyse the functioning of the companies by disabling the board. Appointment of an administrator pendente lite is permissible in law, but it requires a stronger factual foundation; on these facts, a more limited regulatory order was sufficient and displacement of the executor was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2024 15:23:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=751337" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 830 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313679</link>
      <description>Pending probate proceedings, the probate court may grant interim protective orders to preserve the deceased&#039;s estate where necessity is shown. The court treated majority shareholding and the control incidents attached to it as part of the estate capable of limited protection, while recognising that the estate may include property discovered later. It also noted that protective relief should not paralyse the functioning of the companies by disabling the board. Appointment of an administrator pendente lite is permissible in law, but it requires a stronger factual foundation; on these facts, a more limited regulatory order was sufficient and displacement of the executor was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>