<?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>2006 (9) TMI 534 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171111</link>
    <description>Section 80 CPC notice is mandatory, but suit institution without notice may be permitted under sub-section (2) where urgent and immediate relief is sought and the court applies its mind to the pleaded urgency. On the facts, leave had been granted before suit, the State had participated without timely objection, and the dispensation of notice was not treated as jurisdictionally defective; the challenge on this ground failed. An amendment under Order VI Rule 17 that would convert an arbitration petition into a civil suit raised a question of change in the nature of the proceeding and required closer scrutiny. As the High Court had not finally examined that issue, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2015 21:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389892" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 534 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171111</link>
      <description>Section 80 CPC notice is mandatory, but suit institution without notice may be permitted under sub-section (2) where urgent and immediate relief is sought and the court applies its mind to the pleaded urgency. On the facts, leave had been granted before suit, the State had participated without timely objection, and the dispensation of notice was not treated as jurisdictionally defective; the challenge on this ground failed. An amendment under Order VI Rule 17 that would convert an arbitration petition into a civil suit raised a question of change in the nature of the proceeding and required closer scrutiny. As the High Court had not finally examined that issue, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>