<?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>1997 (4) TMI 531 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199884</link>
    <description>The High Court of Delhi held that Rule 4, not Rule 3, applies for valuation in a passing-off suit seeking accounts. The court fee for such suits is fixed, and the plaintiff can determine the suit&#039;s value for jurisdictional purposes. The judgment of the Single Judge was overturned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:05:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 531 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199884</link>
      <description>The High Court of Delhi held that Rule 4, not Rule 3, applies for valuation in a passing-off suit seeking accounts. The court fee for such suits is fixed, and the plaintiff can determine the suit&#039;s value for jurisdictional purposes. The judgment of the Single Judge was overturned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>