<?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 (4) TMI 600 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185823</link>
    <description>A transferee pendente lite may be brought on record in pending second appeals where his presence is necessary for complete adjudication of the controversy. Order 1 Rule 10 allows addition of a party whose joinder is necessary, while Order XXII Rule 10 permits continuation of proceedings by or against a person on whom interest has devolved during pendency, subject to prima facie satisfaction at the stage of leave. Although such a transferee remains bound by the decree under lis pendens, that does not bar impleadment where the acquired interest in the subject matter is substantial. On that reasoning, the request for substitution was stated to be wrongly rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2024 10:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 600 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185823</link>
      <description>A transferee pendente lite may be brought on record in pending second appeals where his presence is necessary for complete adjudication of the controversy. Order 1 Rule 10 allows addition of a party whose joinder is necessary, while Order XXII Rule 10 permits continuation of proceedings by or against a person on whom interest has devolved during pendency, subject to prima facie satisfaction at the stage of leave. Although such a transferee remains bound by the decree under lis pendens, that does not bar impleadment where the acquired interest in the subject matter is substantial. On that reasoning, the request for substitution was stated to be wrongly rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>