<?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>1899 (8) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291807</link>
    <description>Jurisdiction of a Civil Court under the Bengal and N.-W.P. and Assam Civil Courts Act was treated as depending on notification fixing local limits, while the District Judge&#039;s power under Section 13(2) was limited to administrative distribution of civil business subject to statutory limits and High Court orders. Because the decree had been passed by the Second Subordinate Judge, the subsequent execution application had to be presented to that same officer. Administrative redistribution of work could not remove the court&#039;s authority to deal with execution of its own decree, so the jurisdictional objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 1899 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1899 (8) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291807</link>
      <description>Jurisdiction of a Civil Court under the Bengal and N.-W.P. and Assam Civil Courts Act was treated as depending on notification fixing local limits, while the District Judge&#039;s power under Section 13(2) was limited to administrative distribution of civil business subject to statutory limits and High Court orders. Because the decree had been passed by the Second Subordinate Judge, the subsequent execution application had to be presented to that same officer. Administrative redistribution of work could not remove the court&#039;s authority to deal with execution of its own decree, so the jurisdictional objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 1899 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>