<?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>1995 (10) TMI 237 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279871</link>
    <description>A consumer forum&#039;s direction to hand over possession of a car was found unsustainable because the related claim for garage charges was already pending in a civil suit. The pending civil proceedings made that issue sub judice before the competent civil court, and the Consumer Protection Act was treated as not operating in derogation of other laws. The direction concerning possession in relation to the garage charges was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2019 15:17:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=566204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (10) TMI 237 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279871</link>
      <description>A consumer forum&#039;s direction to hand over possession of a car was found unsustainable because the related claim for garage charges was already pending in a civil suit. The pending civil proceedings made that issue sub judice before the competent civil court, and the Consumer Protection Act was treated as not operating in derogation of other laws. The direction concerning possession in relation to the garage charges was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>