<?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>2000 (8) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45926</link>
    <description>The High Court partially allowed the petition, quashing the excessive deposit requirement of Rs. 25,000 in each case and instead directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,000 in each case for the appeals to proceed. The Court emphasized the need for a fair consideration of the petitioner&#039;s hardship and a thorough hearing of the appeals in accordance with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:01:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45926</link>
      <description>The High Court partially allowed the petition, quashing the excessive deposit requirement of Rs. 25,000 in each case and instead directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,000 in each case for the appeals to proceed. The Court emphasized the need for a fair consideration of the petitioner&#039;s hardship and a thorough hearing of the appeals in accordance with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45926</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>