<?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>1978 (11) TMI 161 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274965</link>
    <description>Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent may be granted when a new defendant is impleaded, even if leave had not been obtained when the original suit was filed, because the suit is treated as a new suit as against that defendant. The absence of leave at inception did not bar consideration of leave at the impleadment stage. The Court found no waiver or submission to jurisdiction since objection was raised at the earliest opportunity. Revocation was unwarranted because the forum choice was not shown to be mala fide, material evidence was available at Madras, and no serious injustice or overwhelming inconvenience to the defendant was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:09:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (11) TMI 161 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274965</link>
      <description>Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent may be granted when a new defendant is impleaded, even if leave had not been obtained when the original suit was filed, because the suit is treated as a new suit as against that defendant. The absence of leave at inception did not bar consideration of leave at the impleadment stage. The Court found no waiver or submission to jurisdiction since objection was raised at the earliest opportunity. Revocation was unwarranted because the forum choice was not shown to be mala fide, material evidence was available at Madras, and no serious injustice or overwhelming inconvenience to the defendant was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>