<?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>1965 (2) TMI 138 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469741</link>
    <description>An arbitration award did not need registration before a decree could be passed in terms of it because the stipulation about lands and ornaments did not create or declare any interest in immovable property. Proceedings to file the award and obtain a decree under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 were not a suit for purposes of the Civil Procedure Code, so Central Government consent was not required. Privy purse payable to a former Ruler was treated as a political pension founded on state policy and covenantal obligations, and was therefore exempt from attachment or sale in execution. The award and decree challenge failed, but execution against privy purse amounts was barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 13:22:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909613" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (2) TMI 138 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469741</link>
      <description>An arbitration award did not need registration before a decree could be passed in terms of it because the stipulation about lands and ornaments did not create or declare any interest in immovable property. Proceedings to file the award and obtain a decree under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 were not a suit for purposes of the Civil Procedure Code, so Central Government consent was not required. Privy purse payable to a former Ruler was treated as a political pension founded on state policy and covenantal obligations, and was therefore exempt from attachment or sale in execution. The award and decree challenge failed, but execution against privy purse amounts was barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>