<?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>1996 (9) TMI 664 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311464</link>
    <description>A consent decree based on compromise should ordinarily not be varied without the consent of both parties. The Court noted that substantial compliance had already been made and only future instalments remained, which constituted special circumstances against interference. It also held that the dispute concerning RC books could not be decided in the proceedings. On that basis, no ground was found to interfere with the High Court&#039;s rescheduling of payment under the consent decree, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2023 16:11:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=737273" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 664 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311464</link>
      <description>A consent decree based on compromise should ordinarily not be varied without the consent of both parties. The Court noted that substantial compliance had already been made and only future instalments remained, which constituted special circumstances against interference. It also held that the dispute concerning RC books could not be decided in the proceedings. On that basis, no ground was found to interfere with the High Court&#039;s rescheduling of payment under the consent decree, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311464</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>