<?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>2024 (9) TMI 1156 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758912</link>
    <description>Petitions challenging a seizure and attachment order under Section 102 CrPC were disposed of after the prosecution stated that the EOW would withdraw the order within one week. The Court accepted that statement, recorded that nothing survived for further consideration, and discharged the rule. No further relief was granted because the disputed attachment was to be withdrawn.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 May 2025 11:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769286" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1156 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758912</link>
      <description>Petitions challenging a seizure and attachment order under Section 102 CrPC were disposed of after the prosecution stated that the EOW would withdraw the order within one week. The Court accepted that statement, recorded that nothing survived for further consideration, and discharged the rule. No further relief was granted because the disputed attachment was to be withdrawn.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>