<?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>2025 (4) TMI 1237 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769323</link>
    <description>An application under Section 151 CPC sought modification of an earlier order and extension of time to file a reply to a show cause notice. The court examined the petitioner&#039;s identity and genuineness by comparing presence details, identity proof, sample signature, signatures on the affidavit and application, and the rent agreement on record. It found inconsistent signatures, variation in the spelling of the petitioner&#039;s name, and no satisfactory explanation regarding the ownership of entities referred to in the material. On these factual findings, the court was not satisfied about the petitioner&#039;s identity or genuineness, and the application was not allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 09:09:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=816516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1237 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769323</link>
      <description>An application under Section 151 CPC sought modification of an earlier order and extension of time to file a reply to a show cause notice. The court examined the petitioner&#039;s identity and genuineness by comparing presence details, identity proof, sample signature, signatures on the affidavit and application, and the rent agreement on record. It found inconsistent signatures, variation in the spelling of the petitioner&#039;s name, and no satisfactory explanation regarding the ownership of entities referred to in the material. On these factual findings, the court was not satisfied about the petitioner&#039;s identity or genuineness, and the application was not allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>