<?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>1981 (5) TMI 128 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199860</link>
    <description>The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 gives the Rent Controller only limited procedural powers, and the Code of Civil Procedure applies mainly for summoning witnesses, compelling production of evidence, and execution of orders. Outside those areas, the Controller may follow his own procedure. Because the Act is intended to provide a summary and expeditious remedy, there is no express or implied bar on treating an issue as a preliminary issue where its determination may dispose of the proceedings. The cited precedent was read as recognising that discretion. The order directing issue No. 2 to be tried preliminarily was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:20:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (5) TMI 128 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199860</link>
      <description>The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 gives the Rent Controller only limited procedural powers, and the Code of Civil Procedure applies mainly for summoning witnesses, compelling production of evidence, and execution of orders. Outside those areas, the Controller may follow his own procedure. Because the Act is intended to provide a summary and expeditious remedy, there is no express or implied bar on treating an issue as a preliminary issue where its determination may dispose of the proceedings. The cited precedent was read as recognising that discretion. The order directing issue No. 2 to be tried preliminarily was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199860</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>