<?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>1934 (3) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275903</link>
    <description>Applications for attachment before judgment and temporary injunction require proper affidavit support, a prima facie case, and material showing a real threat of alienation or obstruction; absent those elements, relief remains discretionary and appellate interference is limited to cases where discretion was not judicially exercised. The discussion also notes that an appeal may not merit summary disposal where arguable grounds exist on the evidence, valuation, or possession issues. The judges differed on whether the appeals should be admitted or dismissed, and the bench could not reach a majority view, so the matter was referred to a third judge under the Letters Patent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 1934 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2018 16:39:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1934 (3) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275903</link>
      <description>Applications for attachment before judgment and temporary injunction require proper affidavit support, a prima facie case, and material showing a real threat of alienation or obstruction; absent those elements, relief remains discretionary and appellate interference is limited to cases where discretion was not judicially exercised. The discussion also notes that an appeal may not merit summary disposal where arguable grounds exist on the evidence, valuation, or possession issues. The judges differed on whether the appeals should be admitted or dismissed, and the bench could not reach a majority view, so the matter was referred to a third judge under the Letters Patent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 1934 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275903</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>