<?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>1984 (12) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5933</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court found that the respondent abused the legal process to gain an advantage by obtaining an ex parte injunction and removing goods from godowns. The court ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 14 lakhs as restitution for the removed goods, emphasizing the need to uphold the integrity of legal processes and prevent their misuse for personal gain. The respondent could contest the valuation in future proceedings, but the burden of proof would be on them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (12) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5933</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court found that the respondent abused the legal process to gain an advantage by obtaining an ex parte injunction and removing goods from godowns. The court ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 14 lakhs as restitution for the removed goods, emphasizing the need to uphold the integrity of legal processes and prevent their misuse for personal gain. The respondent could contest the valuation in future proceedings, but the burden of proof would be on them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5933</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>