<?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>1960 (8) TMI 111 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302427</link>
    <description>Section 4 of the Indian Independence (Legal Proceedings) Order, 1947 was construed as applying only to proceedings in the specified provincial courts where trial-court jurisdiction was affected by partition-related territorial changes. The deeming effect in Section 4(3) operated only for that limited class of proceedings, so a decree arising from a suit whose proper forum and cause of action remained at Lahore did not qualify for execution in India under the Order. The application for execution was therefore incompetent. Kapur, J. dissented, reading Section 4 more broadly to cover all pending proceedings in the specified provinces and to give the decree effect in India as if passed by a competent court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 May 2022 13:18:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=680172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (8) TMI 111 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302427</link>
      <description>Section 4 of the Indian Independence (Legal Proceedings) Order, 1947 was construed as applying only to proceedings in the specified provincial courts where trial-court jurisdiction was affected by partition-related territorial changes. The deeming effect in Section 4(3) operated only for that limited class of proceedings, so a decree arising from a suit whose proper forum and cause of action remained at Lahore did not qualify for execution in India under the Order. The application for execution was therefore incompetent. Kapur, J. dissented, reading Section 4 more broadly to cover all pending proceedings in the specified provinces and to give the decree effect in India as if passed by a competent court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302427</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>