<?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>2023 (10) TMI 1394 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314283</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court confined the impugned judgment&#039;s observations and findings to what was necessary for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The special leave petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of. Delay was condoned, but the operative point was that the earlier findings were limited in scope to the plaint-rejection question and were not treated as broader determinations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 May 2024 21:17:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 1394 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314283</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court confined the impugned judgment&#039;s observations and findings to what was necessary for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The special leave petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of. Delay was condoned, but the operative point was that the earlier findings were limited in scope to the plaint-rejection question and were not treated as broader determinations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314283</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>