<?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>2002 (3) TMI 933 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192783</link>
    <description>When an ex parte decree is set aside for non-service of summons, it cannot be treated as enforceable in the same manner, and any conditions imposed for restoring the matter must be reasonable in the facts. The court recognised that terms such as costs, part-payment or security may be imposed, but found that requiring a substantial deposit and a bank guarantee before trial was excessive and unjustified. The conditions were therefore modified, with only an additional deposit of Rs. 50,000 directed and the remaining deposit and bank guarantee requirement set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:51:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=473631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 933 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192783</link>
      <description>When an ex parte decree is set aside for non-service of summons, it cannot be treated as enforceable in the same manner, and any conditions imposed for restoring the matter must be reasonable in the facts. The court recognised that terms such as costs, part-payment or security may be imposed, but found that requiring a substantial deposit and a bank guarantee before trial was excessive and unjustified. The conditions were therefore modified, with only an additional deposit of Rs. 50,000 directed and the remaining deposit and bank guarantee requirement set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>