<?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>1993 (12) TMI 239 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303699</link>
    <description>Restitution under Section 144 CPC is available only where a decree or order has been varied or reversed and the claimed benefit flows consequentially from that change. A mere reduction in the rate of interest, without reversal of the substantive decree for refund of consideration money, is not enough. The text emphasises that the applicant must show the prejudice complained of arose from the original erroneous terms and that the impugned consequence would not have occurred but for those terms. As the appellate decree only reduced interest from 12 per cent to 6 per cent and left the refund decree intact, restitution was not legally justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2022 12:49:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=687289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (12) TMI 239 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303699</link>
      <description>Restitution under Section 144 CPC is available only where a decree or order has been varied or reversed and the claimed benefit flows consequentially from that change. A mere reduction in the rate of interest, without reversal of the substantive decree for refund of consideration money, is not enough. The text emphasises that the applicant must show the prejudice complained of arose from the original erroneous terms and that the impugned consequence would not have occurred but for those terms. As the appellate decree only reduced interest from 12 per cent to 6 per cent and left the refund decree intact, restitution was not legally justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>