<?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 (1) TMI 399 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110320</link>
    <description>The court found the order flawed in terms of both imposing conditions and not ascertaining the inconsistency of the defense without splitting up the accounts. Consequently, the court remitted the matter back to the court of company jurisdiction to reevaluate the claim and defense, leaving aside the admitted amount. The appeals were disposed of without any order on costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:56:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147336" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 399 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110320</link>
      <description>The court found the order flawed in terms of both imposing conditions and not ascertaining the inconsistency of the defense without splitting up the accounts. Consequently, the court remitted the matter back to the court of company jurisdiction to reevaluate the claim and defense, leaving aside the admitted amount. The appeals were disposed of without any order on costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>