https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202974 Express approval was required before an expulsion resolution under Rule 36(3) could take effect; the six-month period did not create a deeming fiction, and courts could not add one or extend the rule by interpretation. The refusal to treat non-decision as approval therefore remained valid. In writ jurisdiction, the High Court could not reappreciate reasoned factual findings of the Registrar and the Financial Commissioner or sit in appellate review over them; certiorari lies only for jurisdictional error or an error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court's contrary interference was therefore held unwarranted, and the administrative refusal to approve the expulsion stood restored. en-us Mon, 18 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202974 Express approval was required before an expulsion resolution under Rule 36(3) could take effect; the six-month period did not create a deeming fiction, and courts could not add one or extend the rule by interpretation. The refusal to treat non-decision as approval therefore remained valid. In writ jurisdiction, the High Court could not reappreciate reasoned factual findings of the Registrar and the Financial Commissioner or sit in appellate review over them; certiorari lies only for jurisdictional error or an error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court's contrary interference was therefore held unwarranted, and the administrative refusal to approve the expulsion stood restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202974