<?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>1928 (7) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200404</link>
    <description>The court ruled that the new Letters Patent cannot be applied retrospectively to pending cases as it would take away existing rights of appeal. The court held that the date of institution of the suit determines the applicability of the amended clause. The appeal was allowed to be accepted and registered without costs. All judges concurred with the judgment delivered by Rankin, C.J.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:40:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514906" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1928 (7) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200404</link>
      <description>The court ruled that the new Letters Patent cannot be applied retrospectively to pending cases as it would take away existing rights of appeal. The court held that the date of institution of the suit determines the applicability of the amended clause. The appeal was allowed to be accepted and registered without costs. All judges concurred with the judgment delivered by Rankin, C.J.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>