<?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>1935 (11) TMI 28 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289407</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the application, affirming the Subordinate Judge&#039;s order on court-fee valuation and sufficiency of payment. The court upheld the general practice of not revising interlocutory orders in court-fee matters unless exceptional circumstances necessitate intervention, emphasizing the importance of revenue protection and limited grounds for revising orders favoring plaintiffs in such disputes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:38:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1935 (11) TMI 28 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289407</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the application, affirming the Subordinate Judge&#039;s order on court-fee valuation and sufficiency of payment. The court upheld the general practice of not revising interlocutory orders in court-fee matters unless exceptional circumstances necessitate intervention, emphasizing the importance of revenue protection and limited grounds for revising orders favoring plaintiffs in such disputes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>