<?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 (5) TMI 1211 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297073</link>
    <description>Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as inserted in Delhi, is intended to protect landlords during prolonged eviction litigation by securing payment pendente lite. The provision is not confined to the rent admitted by the defendant, because the omission of the word &quot;admitted&quot; shows that the Court may direct deposit of a reasonable amount supported by the material on record, including evidence and probabilities. However, the amount cannot be fixed arbitrarily or without evidentiary basis. On the facts described, the available material did not justify interference with the monthly deposit direction, which was maintained pending final adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:26:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=653116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 1211 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297073</link>
      <description>Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as inserted in Delhi, is intended to protect landlords during prolonged eviction litigation by securing payment pendente lite. The provision is not confined to the rent admitted by the defendant, because the omission of the word &quot;admitted&quot; shows that the Court may direct deposit of a reasonable amount supported by the material on record, including evidence and probabilities. However, the amount cannot be fixed arbitrarily or without evidentiary basis. On the facts described, the available material did not justify interference with the monthly deposit direction, which was maintained pending final adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>