<?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>1969 (12) TMI 114 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194636</link>
    <description>The amended proviso to Order 21 Rule 90 CPC applied to a pending application because &quot;entertain&quot; means adjudicate upon or consider on merits at the stage of decision, not merely filing. The clause also gave the executing court discretion over the amount of deposit and power to dispense with deposit for recorded reasons. Since the application had been filed before the amendment and the parties had proceeded on the footing that the new requirement did not apply, the applicant should have been given an opportunity to comply before rejection. The High Court&#039;s refusal was erroneous, the appeal succeeded, and the matter was remitted to the executing court for decision according to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Sep 2017 17:43:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (12) TMI 114 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194636</link>
      <description>The amended proviso to Order 21 Rule 90 CPC applied to a pending application because &quot;entertain&quot; means adjudicate upon or consider on merits at the stage of decision, not merely filing. The clause also gave the executing court discretion over the amount of deposit and power to dispense with deposit for recorded reasons. Since the application had been filed before the amendment and the parties had proceeded on the footing that the new requirement did not apply, the applicant should have been given an opportunity to comply before rejection. The High Court&#039;s refusal was erroneous, the appeal succeeded, and the matter was remitted to the executing court for decision according to law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194636</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>