<?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>1916 (2) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294856</link>
    <description>The expression &quot;subject-matter&quot; in Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC requires strict construction because the provision is penal in effect. A second suit is barred only where it concerns the same subject-matter as the first suit; if the cause of action and relief claimed are different, it is not treated as the same matter. Earlier wider interpretations were disapproved, and a second suit connected with the first is not barred on that basis alone.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 1916 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 May 2021 10:43:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=643634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1916 (2) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294856</link>
      <description>The expression &quot;subject-matter&quot; in Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC requires strict construction because the provision is penal in effect. A second suit is barred only where it concerns the same subject-matter as the first suit; if the cause of action and relief claimed are different, it is not treated as the same matter. Earlier wider interpretations were disapproved, and a second suit connected with the first is not barred on that basis alone.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 1916 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>