<?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>1992 (12) TMI 237 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301964</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and the High Court. The suit was decreed only for the principal amount without any interest, and no costs were awarded. The court held that the bank had acted with reasonable care and was not negligent in the absence of an ultraviolet ray lamp.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2022 17:30:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (12) TMI 237 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301964</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and the High Court. The suit was decreed only for the principal amount without any interest, and no costs were awarded. The court held that the bank had acted with reasonable care and was not negligent in the absence of an ultraviolet ray lamp.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>