<?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>2005 (12) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47763</link>
    <description>Where a serious objection to civil court jurisdiction is raised in a suit challenging excise show cause notices, the jurisdictional issue should be framed and decided as a preliminary issue before the court proceeds to the merits or grants substantive interim protection. The High Court noted that the plaints and ex parte injunction orders did not show any specific adjudication of the Section 40 jurisdictional objection or reasoned consideration of the usual requirements for interim relief. It therefore directed the trial courts to decide jurisdiction first, after hearing both sides and considering their materials, while maintaining status quo until fresh determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:55:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47763</link>
      <description>Where a serious objection to civil court jurisdiction is raised in a suit challenging excise show cause notices, the jurisdictional issue should be framed and decided as a preliminary issue before the court proceeds to the merits or grants substantive interim protection. The High Court noted that the plaints and ex parte injunction orders did not show any specific adjudication of the Section 40 jurisdictional objection or reasoned consideration of the usual requirements for interim relief. It therefore directed the trial courts to decide jurisdiction first, after hearing both sides and considering their materials, while maintaining status quo until fresh determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>