<?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>2021 (8) TMI 1248 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298681</link>
    <description>An application under Section 151 CPC was allowed to let the petitioner place a subsequent order on record, because the document was relevant for further consideration and the respondents, though served, did not appear. The Court granted liberty to rely on the additional document, directed renotification, and ordered that the matter be heard afresh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Nov 2021 18:45:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=661052" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 1248 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298681</link>
      <description>An application under Section 151 CPC was allowed to let the petitioner place a subsequent order on record, because the document was relevant for further consideration and the respondents, though served, did not appear. The Court granted liberty to rely on the additional document, directed renotification, and ordered that the matter be heard afresh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>