<?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>1982 (9) TMI 234 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166708</link>
    <description>A penal and debarment order could not be enforced against a person who had retired from the firm before the show-cause proceedings and who was not personally served with notice. The record showed cessation of partnership through official certificates, and no material disproved that position or linked the alleged transactions to his period as partner. The court held that an order with personal civil consequences could not operate behind his back and was liable to be quashed against him. Objections based on alternate remedy and laches were also rejected because he had no occasion to appeal without personal notice and had acted promptly after learning of the debarment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:20:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (9) TMI 234 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166708</link>
      <description>A penal and debarment order could not be enforced against a person who had retired from the firm before the show-cause proceedings and who was not personally served with notice. The record showed cessation of partnership through official certificates, and no material disproved that position or linked the alleged transactions to his period as partner. The court held that an order with personal civil consequences could not operate behind his back and was liable to be quashed against him. Objections based on alternate remedy and laches were also rejected because he had no occasion to appeal without personal notice and had acted promptly after learning of the debarment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166708</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>