<?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>1968 (7) TMI 87 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199252</link>
    <description>Section 80 CPC notice is valid if read as a whole and, on a common-sense construction, it substantially identifies the person who will sue. The description of the plaintiff need not be technically exact where the notice, signature and surrounding recitals make clear that a proprietary concern is involved and the suit is brought by its proprietor. The provision&#039;s purpose is to give the Government a fair opportunity to examine and settle the claim before litigation, not to defeat claims through technical objections. On that basis, the notice was not defective on identity, the suit remained maintainable, and the dismissal was set aside with the trial decree restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2018 17:49:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (7) TMI 87 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199252</link>
      <description>Section 80 CPC notice is valid if read as a whole and, on a common-sense construction, it substantially identifies the person who will sue. The description of the plaintiff need not be technically exact where the notice, signature and surrounding recitals make clear that a proprietary concern is involved and the suit is brought by its proprietor. The provision&#039;s purpose is to give the Government a fair opportunity to examine and settle the claim before litigation, not to defeat claims through technical objections. On that basis, the notice was not defective on identity, the suit remained maintainable, and the dismissal was set aside with the trial decree restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199252</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>