<?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>1993 (12) TMI 234 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283202</link>
    <description>Relief against unreasonable railway freight charges was confined to the date of the Tribunal&#039;s judgment rather than the complaint date. Under the Railways Act, the Tribunal could issue interim and final orders and mould relief to the circumstances. Principles governing pleadings and relief under the Code of Civil Procedure permit specific or general relief consistent with the substance of the claim, but declaratory and ancillary relief is discretionary rather than automatic. Delay in constituting the Tribunal did not itself warrant retrospective relief. Restricting relief prospectively was treated as a just and equitable exercise of discretion, with no error of law requiring interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:29:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=587003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (12) TMI 234 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283202</link>
      <description>Relief against unreasonable railway freight charges was confined to the date of the Tribunal&#039;s judgment rather than the complaint date. Under the Railways Act, the Tribunal could issue interim and final orders and mould relief to the circumstances. Principles governing pleadings and relief under the Code of Civil Procedure permit specific or general relief consistent with the substance of the claim, but declaratory and ancillary relief is discretionary rather than automatic. Delay in constituting the Tribunal did not itself warrant retrospective relief. Restricting relief prospectively was treated as a just and equitable exercise of discretion, with no error of law requiring interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>