<?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>1981 (10) TMI 183 - Bombay High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170969</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the appellate decree and restoring the trial court&#039;s decree. The appeal filed by certain trustees was deemed incompetent due to the non-inclusion of all trustees, making it inherently defective. The High Court did not address the issue of the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC, as the appeal was disposed of on the preliminary point of its defectiveness. The appellant was entitled to the costs of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:24:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389438" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (10) TMI 183 - Bombay High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170969</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the appellate decree and restoring the trial court&#039;s decree. The appeal filed by certain trustees was deemed incompetent due to the non-inclusion of all trustees, making it inherently defective. The High Court did not address the issue of the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC, as the appeal was disposed of on the preliminary point of its defectiveness. The appellant was entitled to the costs of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>