<?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>2002 (4) TMI 998 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307536</link>
    <description>The Trial Court rejected the Applicant&#039;s objection to limitation in a suit for specific performance, ruling that the issue required evidence and was not solely a legal question. The Court found that Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, did not apply as the objection was not raised during an application for interim relief. Consequently, the Civil Revision Application was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:35:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=711319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 998 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307536</link>
      <description>The Trial Court rejected the Applicant&#039;s objection to limitation in a suit for specific performance, ruling that the issue required evidence and was not solely a legal question. The Court found that Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, did not apply as the objection was not raised during an application for interim relief. Consequently, the Civil Revision Application was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307536</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>