<?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>2016 (4) TMI 757 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326643</link>
    <description>Where the principal dispute between contracting parties had been settled by later agreements and a consent award, and one suit had been withdrawn, interim orders based on that suit lapsed with it. The Court noted that the remaining suits, insofar as they sought relief against the settling party, no longer disclosed a live cause, and independent title claims could not be adjudicated through interlocutory proceedings in rival suits. It further treated the prolonged multiplicity of proceedings, repeated interim challenges, and attempts to secure substantive relief at an interim stage as an abuse of process and misuse of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136. The special leave petitions were dismissed as infructuous, connected interim orders lapsed, and exemplary costs were imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 757 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326643</link>
      <description>Where the principal dispute between contracting parties had been settled by later agreements and a consent award, and one suit had been withdrawn, interim orders based on that suit lapsed with it. The Court noted that the remaining suits, insofar as they sought relief against the settling party, no longer disclosed a live cause, and independent title claims could not be adjudicated through interlocutory proceedings in rival suits. It further treated the prolonged multiplicity of proceedings, repeated interim challenges, and attempts to secure substantive relief at an interim stage as an abuse of process and misuse of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136. The special leave petitions were dismissed as infructuous, connected interim orders lapsed, and exemplary costs were imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326643</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>