<?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>1980 (9) TMI 284 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176814</link>
    <description>A revisional order affecting party rights could not stand where the High Court disposed of the matter without issuing notice or hearing the respondent or counsel, because the audi alteram partem rule required compliance with natural justice. The later note recorded by the High Court did not cure the defect. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal after hearing both parties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:58:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (9) TMI 284 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176814</link>
      <description>A revisional order affecting party rights could not stand where the High Court disposed of the matter without issuing notice or hearing the respondent or counsel, because the audi alteram partem rule required compliance with natural justice. The later note recorded by the High Court did not cure the defect. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal after hearing both parties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>