<?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>2002 (10) TMI 32 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11864</link>
    <description>The court partially allowed the petition, quashing the complaint and summoning order against specific petitioners, Gurdial Singh and Smt. Ajit Kaur, due to lack of allegations against them. The remaining petitioners were directed to face trial. The judgment highlighted the necessity of specifying individual responsibilities in business-related complaints and granted the petitioners the opportunity to present their case in the trial court promptly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 32 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11864</link>
      <description>The court partially allowed the petition, quashing the complaint and summoning order against specific petitioners, Gurdial Singh and Smt. Ajit Kaur, due to lack of allegations against them. The remaining petitioners were directed to face trial. The judgment highlighted the necessity of specifying individual responsibilities in business-related complaints and granted the petitioners the opportunity to present their case in the trial court promptly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>