<?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>2008 (10) TMI 714 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297092</link>
    <description>A court commission for local investigation may be issued only where the facts genuinely require elucidation and the court exercises its discretion judicially under Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. The commission cannot be used as a substitute for evidence that parties must lead themselves. Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC is a separate provision for preservation, inspection and related interlocutory measures, and did not justify the appointment on the facts stated. The application, read by its substance, did not warrant local investigation, and there was also lack of proper notice before treating it under Order XXXIX Rule 7. The impugned appointment of the Commissioner was therefore set aside and the appeal was directed to be decided expeditiously after hearing the parties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:31:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=653245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 714 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297092</link>
      <description>A court commission for local investigation may be issued only where the facts genuinely require elucidation and the court exercises its discretion judicially under Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. The commission cannot be used as a substitute for evidence that parties must lead themselves. Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC is a separate provision for preservation, inspection and related interlocutory measures, and did not justify the appointment on the facts stated. The application, read by its substance, did not warrant local investigation, and there was also lack of proper notice before treating it under Order XXXIX Rule 7. The impugned appointment of the Commissioner was therefore set aside and the appeal was directed to be decided expeditiously after hearing the parties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>