<?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>1922 (10) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290424</link>
    <description>The court had to determine whether the increased institution fees applied to suits filed on the notification date of May 5th, 1922. The Chief Justice and one judge ruled in favor of the Crown, applying the new fees to suits filed on May 5th. However, one judge dissented, arguing for the exclusion of the notification date and applying the old fees to suits filed on May 5th.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 1922 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:31:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=623254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1922 (10) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290424</link>
      <description>The court had to determine whether the increased institution fees applied to suits filed on the notification date of May 5th, 1922. The Chief Justice and one judge ruled in favor of the Crown, applying the new fees to suits filed on May 5th. However, one judge dissented, arguing for the exclusion of the notification date and applying the old fees to suits filed on May 5th.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 1922 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>