<?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>2005 (10) TMI 538 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172495</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court&#039;s order and restoring the original writ petition for fresh consideration on merits. Review jurisdiction was warranted due to an error apparent on the face of the record and non-consideration of relevant documents. Both parties were permitted to submit additional documents in the High Court, and the Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. The appeals were allowed with no costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 538 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172495</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court&#039;s order and restoring the original writ petition for fresh consideration on merits. Review jurisdiction was warranted due to an error apparent on the face of the record and non-consideration of relevant documents. Both parties were permitted to submit additional documents in the High Court, and the Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. The appeals were allowed with no costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>