<?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 (11) TMI 40 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238863</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the interlocutory application, incorporating a prayer to quash the lower court&#039;s order. The petitioner objected to being present during the opening of sealed documents by the Investigating Officer, arguing it was unnecessary. The Court agreed, setting aside the previous orders and emphasizing the petitioner&#039;s cooperation in the investigation. The judgment underscores the need for procedural fairness and justification in court directives.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334112" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 40 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238863</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the interlocutory application, incorporating a prayer to quash the lower court&#039;s order. The petitioner objected to being present during the opening of sealed documents by the Investigating Officer, arguing it was unnecessary. The Court agreed, setting aside the previous orders and emphasizing the petitioner&#039;s cooperation in the investigation. The judgment underscores the need for procedural fairness and justification in court directives.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238863</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>