<?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>1925 (7) TMI 1 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196396</link>
    <description>An order permitting withdrawal of a suit, even if it does not expressly grant liberty to file a fresh suit, may be construed in context of the withdrawal petition seeking leave to sue again. The absence of express words allowing a fresh suit does not necessarily mean that permission was refused. On that reasoning, the subsequent suit was not treated as barred on that ground, and the objection to maintainability was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 1925 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:43:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1925 (7) TMI 1 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196396</link>
      <description>An order permitting withdrawal of a suit, even if it does not expressly grant liberty to file a fresh suit, may be construed in context of the withdrawal petition seeking leave to sue again. The absence of express words allowing a fresh suit does not necessarily mean that permission was refused. On that reasoning, the subsequent suit was not treated as barred on that ground, and the objection to maintainability was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 1925 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>