<?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>1964 (11) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169461</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court revoked the special leave to appeal granted to the appellant due to non-compliance with procedural rules. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the rule breached and noted that no appeal lay directly to the Supreme Court in this case. Despite the appellant&#039;s reliance on a previous case, the Court distinguished it and directed the revocation of the special leave to appeal. The order of stay was vacated, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:19:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (11) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169461</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court revoked the special leave to appeal granted to the appellant due to non-compliance with procedural rules. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the rule breached and noted that no appeal lay directly to the Supreme Court in this case. Despite the appellant&#039;s reliance on a previous case, the Court distinguished it and directed the revocation of the special leave to appeal. The order of stay was vacated, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>