<?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>2001 (2) TMI 1038 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195111</link>
    <description>The appeals were allowed, setting aside the orders dated 1.3.2000 and 10.3.2000. The court held that relief could not be granted against BPCL, a non-party, and stressed that mandatory injunctions should be rare. The application to recall the order dated 10.1.2000 was granted, restoring the status quo. The suit and pending applications were to be listed for disposal before the appropriate bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492632" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 1038 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195111</link>
      <description>The appeals were allowed, setting aside the orders dated 1.3.2000 and 10.3.2000. The court held that relief could not be granted against BPCL, a non-party, and stressed that mandatory injunctions should be rare. The application to recall the order dated 10.1.2000 was granted, restoring the status quo. The suit and pending applications were to be listed for disposal before the appropriate bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>