<?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>1984 (7) TMI 319 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101135</link>
    <description>A notified membership scheme must be applied according to its stated eligibility conditions, and an administrative body cannot add extra qualifications through later resolutions or internal guidelines. The Court found that the applicant met the requirements in the 15 May 1975 notification, namely service as secretary on the specified date and the prescribed academic qualifications, so rejection for lack of further practical experience was unsustainable. Once those conditions were satisfied, the Institute had a legal duty to admit him, and that right was enforceable in writ jurisdiction. The subsequent dissolution of the company did not defeat the pending writ proceedings or the relief sought against the successor Institute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:18:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (7) TMI 319 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101135</link>
      <description>A notified membership scheme must be applied according to its stated eligibility conditions, and an administrative body cannot add extra qualifications through later resolutions or internal guidelines. The Court found that the applicant met the requirements in the 15 May 1975 notification, namely service as secretary on the specified date and the prescribed academic qualifications, so rejection for lack of further practical experience was unsustainable. Once those conditions were satisfied, the Institute had a legal duty to admit him, and that right was enforceable in writ jurisdiction. The subsequent dissolution of the company did not defeat the pending writ proceedings or the relief sought against the successor Institute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>