<?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>1995 (3) TMI 414 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104468</link>
    <description>The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the learned single judge, and left the respondent to its remedy by a regular suit. The court emphasized that the appellant was entitled to be satisfied about the actual expenditure incurred and that several triable issues, including the limitation period, could not be brushed aside. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:09:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 414 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104468</link>
      <description>The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the learned single judge, and left the respondent to its remedy by a regular suit. The court emphasized that the appellant was entitled to be satisfied about the actual expenditure incurred and that several triable issues, including the limitation period, could not be brushed aside. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>