<?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>2013 (10) TMI 1510 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277812</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction between the Allahabad and Lucknow Benches is governed by Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948, read with the constitutional and historical allocation preserved by Article 225, and the controlling test is where the cause of action arises or, in criminal matters, where the offence is committed. Notifications constituting Special Judges and fixing their place of sitting regulate the trial forum but do not alter High Court territorial jurisdiction. The preliminary objection to the Full Bench reference was rejected because earlier Division Bench views had not considered the contrary ruling and did not bar reference to a larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2018 16:21:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=549164" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1510 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277812</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction between the Allahabad and Lucknow Benches is governed by Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948, read with the constitutional and historical allocation preserved by Article 225, and the controlling test is where the cause of action arises or, in criminal matters, where the offence is committed. Notifications constituting Special Judges and fixing their place of sitting regulate the trial forum but do not alter High Court territorial jurisdiction. The preliminary objection to the Full Bench reference was rejected because earlier Division Bench views had not considered the contrary ruling and did not bar reference to a larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>