<?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>1920 (12) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272530</link>
    <description>The court granted the attorney&#039;s application for payment with costs, finding no substantial dispute regarding the bills of costs and determining that the attorney&#039;s claim was not barred by limitation. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 59, Chapter XXXVIII, in favor of the attorney, emphasizing the need for a summary remedy in cases where the facts are not in real controversy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 1920 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 May 2018 16:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1920 (12) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272530</link>
      <description>The court granted the attorney&#039;s application for payment with costs, finding no substantial dispute regarding the bills of costs and determining that the attorney&#039;s claim was not barred by limitation. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 59, Chapter XXXVIII, in favor of the attorney, emphasizing the need for a summary remedy in cases where the facts are not in real controversy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 1920 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272530</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>