<?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>1994 (9) TMI 353 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184744</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the injunction granted by the High Court. The Court directed that the appellant is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in the Registry, with interest. The Court awarded costs of Rs. 20,000 to be paid by the respondent to the appellant. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that bank guarantees must be honored and that courts should interfere only in exceptional cases involving clear evidence of fraud or irretrievable injustice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:32:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 353 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184744</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the injunction granted by the High Court. The Court directed that the appellant is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in the Registry, with interest. The Court awarded costs of Rs. 20,000 to be paid by the respondent to the appellant. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that bank guarantees must be honored and that courts should interfere only in exceptional cases involving clear evidence of fraud or irretrievable injustice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>