<?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>2018 (1) TMI 1644 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297368</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petition, upholding the decision to allow amending the complaint to include the company as an accused. The court found the complaint initially referenced the company and deemed the notice to the Director as sufficient for the company. The trial court was directed to rectify its earlier omission regarding the company&#039;s involvement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2021 22:17:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1644 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297368</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petition, upholding the decision to allow amending the complaint to include the company as an accused. The court found the complaint initially referenced the company and deemed the notice to the Director as sufficient for the company. The trial court was directed to rectify its earlier omission regarding the company&#039;s involvement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>