<?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>2020 (1) TMI 1102 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391489</link>
    <description>A civil court exercising original jurisdiction cannot restrain parties from pursuing proceedings before other competent criminal courts or statutory fora, including proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, contempt, NCLT and execution proceedings; those matters must be decided by the forum where they are pending. The restraint order was therefore beyond jurisdiction and was set aside. The preliminary objection to maintainability was also rejected because the impugned interlocutory order was treated as legally erroneous and fit for appellate scrutiny. The appeal succeeded, and the suit was left to continue before the Single Judge in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:13:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 1102 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391489</link>
      <description>A civil court exercising original jurisdiction cannot restrain parties from pursuing proceedings before other competent criminal courts or statutory fora, including proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, contempt, NCLT and execution proceedings; those matters must be decided by the forum where they are pending. The restraint order was therefore beyond jurisdiction and was set aside. The preliminary objection to maintainability was also rejected because the impugned interlocutory order was treated as legally erroneous and fit for appellate scrutiny. The appeal succeeded, and the suit was left to continue before the Single Judge in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>