<?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>1922 (6) TMI 1 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198790</link>
    <description>Restitution on reversal of a decree or order must, so far as possible, restore the parties to the position they would have occupied but for the judicial act, because a court&#039;s process should not injure a suitor. Where auction-purchasers paid the purchase money in reliance on confirmation and that money was applied to the judgment-debtors&#039; liabilities, restoration of possession could be made conditional on refund of that amount. However, an optional payment made to clear a separate charge, without any court order, could not be imposed as a condition precedent. The equities were also met by denying interest on the sums in question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 1922 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 09:48:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1922 (6) TMI 1 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198790</link>
      <description>Restitution on reversal of a decree or order must, so far as possible, restore the parties to the position they would have occupied but for the judicial act, because a court&#039;s process should not injure a suitor. Where auction-purchasers paid the purchase money in reliance on confirmation and that money was applied to the judgment-debtors&#039; liabilities, restoration of possession could be made conditional on refund of that amount. However, an optional payment made to clear a separate charge, without any court order, could not be imposed as a condition precedent. The equities were also met by denying interest on the sums in question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 1922 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>