<?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>1950 (12) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193941</link>
    <description>The appeal was against the dismissal of a suit due to issues with the presentation of the plaint under a power of attorney. The court determined that the agent did not have the authority under the power of attorney to engage an advocate and conduct the suit in the specific court where it was filed. As the power of attorney did not expressly grant such authority, the dismissal of the suit by the Subordinate Judge was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:28:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486517" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1950 (12) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193941</link>
      <description>The appeal was against the dismissal of a suit due to issues with the presentation of the plaint under a power of attorney. The court determined that the agent did not have the authority under the power of attorney to engage an advocate and conduct the suit in the specific court where it was filed. As the power of attorney did not expressly grant such authority, the dismissal of the suit by the Subordinate Judge was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>