<?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>2014 (9) TMI 1231 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295491</link>
    <description>An objection to territorial jurisdiction raised at the threshold should ordinarily be decided first as a preliminary issue because jurisdiction is a pure question of law. Under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, where the Court lacks jurisdiction, the matter ends without examination of the merits. The earlier direction to take up the writ petition for final hearing before deciding jurisdiction was therefore not in accordance with law, and that order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2021 08:35:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=646105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 1231 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295491</link>
      <description>An objection to territorial jurisdiction raised at the threshold should ordinarily be decided first as a preliminary issue because jurisdiction is a pure question of law. Under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, where the Court lacks jurisdiction, the matter ends without examination of the merits. The earlier direction to take up the writ petition for final hearing before deciding jurisdiction was therefore not in accordance with law, and that order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>