<?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>2010 (8) TMI 1144 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295381</link>
    <description>An order on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be a speaking order that deals with the objections and records reasons. A cryptic order that merely notes the objections without examining them or returning findings fails the standard of reasoned adjudication and cannot stand. The High Court therefore quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the court to address each objection and record findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2021 15:27:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=645660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 1144 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295381</link>
      <description>An order on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be a speaking order that deals with the objections and records reasons. A cryptic order that merely notes the objections without examining them or returning findings fails the standard of reasoned adjudication and cannot stand. The High Court therefore quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the court to address each objection and record findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>