<?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 (12) TMI 46 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172383</link>
    <description>Order 20 Rule 12 CPC limits future mesne profits to the earliest of delivery of possession, relinquishment with notice, or three years from the preliminary decree, so the preliminary decree could not authorise recovery beyond that statutory cap and the objection remained open. The High Court&#039;s enhancement of mesne profits was also unsustainable because it did not adequately address the commissioner&#039;s report, the trial court&#039;s findings, the period of depression, or the comparative basis adopted, and lacked sufficient reasons and factual support. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh determination of the permissible quantum up to the statutory period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:58:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (12) TMI 46 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172383</link>
      <description>Order 20 Rule 12 CPC limits future mesne profits to the earliest of delivery of possession, relinquishment with notice, or three years from the preliminary decree, so the preliminary decree could not authorise recovery beyond that statutory cap and the objection remained open. The High Court&#039;s enhancement of mesne profits was also unsustainable because it did not adequately address the commissioner&#039;s report, the trial court&#039;s findings, the period of depression, or the comparative basis adopted, and lacked sufficient reasons and factual support. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh determination of the permissible quantum up to the statutory period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>