<?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>2006 (12) TMI 128 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30830</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner&#039;s lack of standing and availability of an alternative remedy under Rule 11(6) of the Rules. The court directed the deferment of the confirmation of the sale for six weeks to allow the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal remedy. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 128 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30830</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner&#039;s lack of standing and availability of an alternative remedy under Rule 11(6) of the Rules. The court directed the deferment of the confirmation of the sale for six weeks to allow the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal remedy. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>