<?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>2001 (4) TMI 960 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461153</link>
    <description>Order XXXIX Rule 10 permits an interim deposit direction only where there is a clear admission sufficient to support relief on admissions and where the relevant money or property is held in the required legal character. Where title, possession, and alleged liability are genuinely disputed, and the defence is supported by surrounding circumstances showing a bona fide contest, the rule cannot be invoked. On the stated facts, the defendants&#039; claim of an oral agreement to sell, payment by cheque, delivery of possession, construction activity, house tax payment, and a pending specific performance suit showed a real dispute rather than a sham defence. The application for interim deposit was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:46:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=807199" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 960 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461153</link>
      <description>Order XXXIX Rule 10 permits an interim deposit direction only where there is a clear admission sufficient to support relief on admissions and where the relevant money or property is held in the required legal character. Where title, possession, and alleged liability are genuinely disputed, and the defence is supported by surrounding circumstances showing a bona fide contest, the rule cannot be invoked. On the stated facts, the defendants&#039; claim of an oral agreement to sell, payment by cheque, delivery of possession, construction activity, house tax payment, and a pending specific performance suit showed a real dispute rather than a sham defence. The application for interim deposit was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>