<?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>1985 (1) TMI 253 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101186</link>
    <description>An interim injunction granted by a court without territorial jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot support later relief once the jurisdictional defect is established. Where the Bombay court subsequently held that it lacked jurisdiction, vacated the ad interim injunction, and dismissed the contempt application, the basis for the petitioner&#039;s claim to injunction disappeared. In the absence of waiver of the jurisdictional objection, the earlier order could not remain operative, and events occurring in the meantime could not be treated as illegal on that footing. The petitioner was therefore not entitled to injunction, and the revision failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:08:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (1) TMI 253 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101186</link>
      <description>An interim injunction granted by a court without territorial jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot support later relief once the jurisdictional defect is established. Where the Bombay court subsequently held that it lacked jurisdiction, vacated the ad interim injunction, and dismissed the contempt application, the basis for the petitioner&#039;s claim to injunction disappeared. In the absence of waiver of the jurisdictional objection, the earlier order could not remain operative, and events occurring in the meantime could not be treated as illegal on that footing. The petitioner was therefore not entitled to injunction, and the revision failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>