<?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 (11) TMI 729 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400974</link>
    <description>Interim relief should not ordinarily grant the same substantive relief sought in the main proceedings, especially where doing so would effectively decide the dispute finally. In lockdown-related cargo disputes, shipping and port advisories were treated as time-bound advisories rather than mandatory directions binding private shipping lines or their agents, so they did not automatically override existing contractual arrangements. Because the dispute was largely contractual and no exceptional basis for interlocutory interference was shown, provisional clearance of imported cargo and restraint against detention-related charges were refused, and the refusal to extend the advisory benefit to private entities was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628443" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 729 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400974</link>
      <description>Interim relief should not ordinarily grant the same substantive relief sought in the main proceedings, especially where doing so would effectively decide the dispute finally. In lockdown-related cargo disputes, shipping and port advisories were treated as time-bound advisories rather than mandatory directions binding private shipping lines or their agents, so they did not automatically override existing contractual arrangements. Because the dispute was largely contractual and no exceptional basis for interlocutory interference was shown, provisional clearance of imported cargo and restraint against detention-related charges were refused, and the refusal to extend the advisory benefit to private entities was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400974</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>