<?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>2007 (10) TMI 397 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111309</link>
    <description>A statutory laying requirement that allows a rule or regulation to be laid before Parliament for thirty days across one or more sessions is directory, not mandatory, so failure to re-lay the instrument in a later session does not by itself invalidate delegated legislation. Read with parliamentary procedure rules and the clarification on record, the provision was construed as permitting completion of the laying period over successive sessions without fresh laying. On the facts, the SEBI rules and regulations had in any event been laid before both Houses and were not rejected or modified, so the challenge based on non-laying or insufficient laying failed and the impugned regulations remained valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 14:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 397 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111309</link>
      <description>A statutory laying requirement that allows a rule or regulation to be laid before Parliament for thirty days across one or more sessions is directory, not mandatory, so failure to re-lay the instrument in a later session does not by itself invalidate delegated legislation. Read with parliamentary procedure rules and the clarification on record, the provision was construed as permitting completion of the laying period over successive sessions without fresh laying. On the facts, the SEBI rules and regulations had in any event been laid before both Houses and were not rejected or modified, so the challenge based on non-laying or insufficient laying failed and the impugned regulations remained valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>