<?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>2008 (5) TMI 612 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159311</link>
    <description>Regulation 26 of the Andhra Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1982 authorised Government guidelines on use of bank cars, and the Court held that this power operated in a distinct field from the regulation-making process under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. Because the regulation had already been validly framed, the Central Government was not required to obtain a fresh consultation with the Reserve Bank of India before issuing the later guidelines. The consultation requirement in Section 8 was therefore inapplicable on these facts, and the challenge to the guidelines failed. The impugned judgment was set aside and the Bank&#039;s appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Dec 2017 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336294" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 612 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159311</link>
      <description>Regulation 26 of the Andhra Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1982 authorised Government guidelines on use of bank cars, and the Court held that this power operated in a distinct field from the regulation-making process under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. Because the regulation had already been validly framed, the Central Government was not required to obtain a fresh consultation with the Reserve Bank of India before issuing the later guidelines. The consultation requirement in Section 8 was therefore inapplicable on these facts, and the challenge to the guidelines failed. The impugned judgment was set aside and the Bank&#039;s appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>