<?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 (1) TMI 271 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113086</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 may arise where the impugned appellate order is made, since that place can form part of the cause of action; the Delhi High Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the writ. A quasi-judicial appellate authority has no inherent power of review and can exercise second review only if the statute expressly or by necessary implication confers it. As Section 22(6) of the Banking Regulation Act gives finality to the appeal structure and contains no power of second review, the appellate authority&#039;s second review order was without jurisdiction and non est. The challenge to the licence cancellation accordingly did not succeed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 16:48:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 271 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113086</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 may arise where the impugned appellate order is made, since that place can form part of the cause of action; the Delhi High Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the writ. A quasi-judicial appellate authority has no inherent power of review and can exercise second review only if the statute expressly or by necessary implication confers it. As Section 22(6) of the Banking Regulation Act gives finality to the appeal structure and contains no power of second review, the appellate authority&#039;s second review order was without jurisdiction and non est. The challenge to the licence cancellation accordingly did not succeed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>