<?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>2012 (7) TMI 1122 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294049</link>
    <description>The Full Bench dismissed the Writ Petition, citing that the issues raised were already settled by previous judicial decisions. It was held that the Petitioner, as an Advocate, lacked standing to bring the petition and could not challenge the matters in question. The Court also closed the Miscellaneous Petition without awarding costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2021 17:07:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=639115" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 1122 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294049</link>
      <description>The Full Bench dismissed the Writ Petition, citing that the issues raised were already settled by previous judicial decisions. It was held that the Petitioner, as an Advocate, lacked standing to bring the petition and could not challenge the matters in question. The Court also closed the Miscellaneous Petition without awarding costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>