<?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>1930 (9) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296998</link>
    <description>Strict compliance with Section 80 CPC is required before suing the Government, and the notice must match the identity of the plaintiff or plaintiffs who actually institute the suit. A notice issued by only one of two joint plaintiffs was held insufficient where the relief was claimed jointly, making the defect fatal to maintainability. The Court also stated that rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not limited to part of a plaint where the claim is joint and inseparable; failure against the Government could therefore defeat the connected claim against the other defendants as well, and the plaints were liable to be rejected or dismissed as a whole.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 1930 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Aug 2021 12:43:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652775" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1930 (9) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296998</link>
      <description>Strict compliance with Section 80 CPC is required before suing the Government, and the notice must match the identity of the plaintiff or plaintiffs who actually institute the suit. A notice issued by only one of two joint plaintiffs was held insufficient where the relief was claimed jointly, making the defect fatal to maintainability. The Court also stated that rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not limited to part of a plaint where the claim is joint and inseparable; failure against the Government could therefore defeat the connected claim against the other defendants as well, and the plaints were liable to be rejected or dismissed as a whole.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 1930 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>