<?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>2013 (12) TMI 1719 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297027</link>
    <description>An alleged admission can sustain a decree on admissions only when it is clear, unequivocal and unqualified; selective reliance on a balance sheet or company statement is insufficient where the written statement and other pleadings keep the core liability disputed. The Delhi HC noted that issues concerning the existence of the underlying instruments, the nature of the transaction, mortgage, alleged fraud and enforceability required trial, so Order XII Rule 6 CPC could not be invoked on an isolated reading of material. A review was also declined because no apparent error was shown, and the limitation argument did not resolve the contested foundation of the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2021 13:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652859" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 1719 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297027</link>
      <description>An alleged admission can sustain a decree on admissions only when it is clear, unequivocal and unqualified; selective reliance on a balance sheet or company statement is insufficient where the written statement and other pleadings keep the core liability disputed. The Delhi HC noted that issues concerning the existence of the underlying instruments, the nature of the transaction, mortgage, alleged fraud and enforceability required trial, so Order XII Rule 6 CPC could not be invoked on an isolated reading of material. A review was also declined because no apparent error was shown, and the limitation argument did not resolve the contested foundation of the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>