<?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>2014 (9) TMI 384 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251358</link>
    <description>The appellate court set aside the order directing payment to respondents in a writ petition for contractual claims, citing maintainability issues and the claim being time-barred. The court emphasized that writ petitions are not suitable for enforcing civil liabilities arising from contracts unless a public law element is present. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:36:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=364971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 384 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251358</link>
      <description>The appellate court set aside the order directing payment to respondents in a writ petition for contractual claims, citing maintainability issues and the claim being time-barred. The court emphasized that writ petitions are not suitable for enforcing civil liabilities arising from contracts unless a public law element is present. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>