<?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>1947 (10) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299653</link>
    <description>The court affirmed the revisability of orders amending or refusing to amend pleadings, clarified the High Court&#039;s jurisdiction in interpreting remand orders, amending pleadings, and framing issues, and emphasized the need for judicial discretion in entertaining revisions. The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing the correction of procedural irregularities with avoiding undue interference in interlocutory matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 1947 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2021 10:47:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1947 (10) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299653</link>
      <description>The court affirmed the revisability of orders amending or refusing to amend pleadings, clarified the High Court&#039;s jurisdiction in interpreting remand orders, amending pleadings, and framing issues, and emphasized the need for judicial discretion in entertaining revisions. The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing the correction of procedural irregularities with avoiding undue interference in interlocutory matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 1947 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>