<?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>2019 (4) TMI 2154 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313770</link>
    <description>The Bombay HC dismissed an appeal challenging the appointment of an Administrator pendente lite. The court examined suspicious circumstances surrounding the deceased&#039;s death, including a divorce decree, remarriage, execution of gift deeds, and a will - all occurring within close proximity to the death. The respondent had allegedly gifted properties to the appellant&#039;s former wife and granddaughter shortly before death. The HC found these activities indicated &quot;urgency of purpose&quot; and could not be dismissed as coincidences, suggesting the respondent was being divested of immovable properties. The court upheld the Single Judge&#039;s decision that appointing an Administrator pendente lite was expedient given the material circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 19:54:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=751645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 2154 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313770</link>
      <description>The Bombay HC dismissed an appeal challenging the appointment of an Administrator pendente lite. The court examined suspicious circumstances surrounding the deceased&#039;s death, including a divorce decree, remarriage, execution of gift deeds, and a will - all occurring within close proximity to the death. The respondent had allegedly gifted properties to the appellant&#039;s former wife and granddaughter shortly before death. The HC found these activities indicated &quot;urgency of purpose&quot; and could not be dismissed as coincidences, suggesting the respondent was being divested of immovable properties. The court upheld the Single Judge&#039;s decision that appointing an Administrator pendente lite was expedient given the material circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>