<?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>1994 (1) TMI 320 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456744</link>
    <description>The SC set aside the orders of the Division Bench and Single Judge permitting Somani Builders to occupy the disputed premises. The parties were directed to revert to their positions as of 15th September 1988. Somani Builders were ordered to vacate within one month. The contempt application was to be resolved within proper jurisdiction. The civil appeal was allowed, with costs shared equally by respondents 1 and 2.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:50:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 320 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456744</link>
      <description>The SC set aside the orders of the Division Bench and Single Judge permitting Somani Builders to occupy the disputed premises. The parties were directed to revert to their positions as of 15th September 1988. Somani Builders were ordered to vacate within one month. The contempt application was to be resolved within proper jurisdiction. The civil appeal was allowed, with costs shared equally by respondents 1 and 2.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>