<?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>2013 (4) TMI 334 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222138</link>
    <description>The court found that the respondent breached the agreement but did not grant the specific relief sought by the petitioner. Instead, the court issued an interim direction restraining the respondent for a limited period. The petition was disposed of with no costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:31:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195487" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 334 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222138</link>
      <description>The court found that the respondent breached the agreement but did not grant the specific relief sought by the petitioner. Instead, the court issued an interim direction restraining the respondent for a limited period. The petition was disposed of with no costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>