<?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>1984 (8) TMI 361 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282604</link>
    <description>Duly proved service of notice must be established by cogent evidence when it is denied on oath; affixture without compliance with procedural requirements and without examination of the process server was insufficient. Registered post service also failed because the postal cover, acknowledgment, and proof of posting were not proved, and a refusal endorsement could not be presumed without foundational evidence. Independent knowledge of the final decree proceeding was not established through the commissioner or unrelated miscellaneous proceedings. On these findings, the limitation objection failed, and the ex parte final decree was set aside for want of lawful service and proved knowledge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:52:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=583631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (8) TMI 361 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282604</link>
      <description>Duly proved service of notice must be established by cogent evidence when it is denied on oath; affixture without compliance with procedural requirements and without examination of the process server was insufficient. Registered post service also failed because the postal cover, acknowledgment, and proof of posting were not proved, and a refusal endorsement could not be presumed without foundational evidence. Independent knowledge of the final decree proceeding was not established through the commissioner or unrelated miscellaneous proceedings. On these findings, the limitation objection failed, and the ex parte final decree was set aside for want of lawful service and proved knowledge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>