<?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>1991 (4) TMI 465 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310492</link>
    <description>A suit for correction of date of birth in service records is a civil suit falling within Section 9 CPC unless jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred, and it remains maintainable in Civil Court. The Industrial Disputes Act did not bar the suit because, when it was filed, the contingencies for invoking Section 2-A had not yet arisen, so the plaintiff could not then seek relief under that Act. Where the principal relief is maintainable in the chosen forum, the suit cannot be rejected in toto merely because consequential reliefs may be available elsewhere. The Civil Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and the contrary view was wrong.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2023 15:18:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (4) TMI 465 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310492</link>
      <description>A suit for correction of date of birth in service records is a civil suit falling within Section 9 CPC unless jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred, and it remains maintainable in Civil Court. The Industrial Disputes Act did not bar the suit because, when it was filed, the contingencies for invoking Section 2-A had not yet arisen, so the plaintiff could not then seek relief under that Act. Where the principal relief is maintainable in the chosen forum, the suit cannot be rejected in toto merely because consequential reliefs may be available elsewhere. The Civil Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and the contrary view was wrong.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>