<?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>1926 (4) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289244</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of Defendant No. 1, the Sub-Inspector of police, dismissing the case against him and awarding costs. The judgment clarified the legal basis for conducting searches under Section 165, Criminal P.C., and emphasized the importance of distinct decrees for defendants with different causes of action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 1926 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:09:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1926 (4) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289244</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of Defendant No. 1, the Sub-Inspector of police, dismissing the case against him and awarding costs. The judgment clarified the legal basis for conducting searches under Section 165, Criminal P.C., and emphasized the importance of distinct decrees for defendants with different causes of action.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 1926 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>