<?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 (11) TMI 1040 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198822</link>
    <description>The court vacated the ex parte injunction, rejecting the plaintiff&#039;s application for injunctive relief due to the suppression of material facts. The defendants were allowed to continue selling their products, emphasizing the importance of full disclosure in seeking equitable relief. The plaintiff was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 18:23:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 1040 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198822</link>
      <description>The court vacated the ex parte injunction, rejecting the plaintiff&#039;s application for injunctive relief due to the suppression of material facts. The defendants were allowed to continue selling their products, emphasizing the importance of full disclosure in seeking equitable relief. The plaintiff was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>