<?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>1963 (5) TMI 75 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292236</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the District Judge of Jalpaiguri to decide, in his discretion, whether to demand security from the appellant. The costs incurred in all courts were to be costs in the suit. The court also suggested that the provisions of the Regulation might be outdated and recommended their repeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2020 12:35:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630186" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (5) TMI 75 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292236</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the District Judge of Jalpaiguri to decide, in his discretion, whether to demand security from the appellant. The costs incurred in all courts were to be costs in the suit. The court also suggested that the provisions of the Regulation might be outdated and recommended their repeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>