<?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>2011 (5) TMI 868 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165288</link>
    <description>Executive aviation directions issued under the Aircraft Act and Aircraft Rules may be altered, suspended, or substituted by the competent authority where they operate as special directions or civil aviation requirements rather than subordinate legislation. The Court held that keeping the later Civil Aviation Requirements in abeyance and reviving the earlier Aeronautical Information Circular as an interim measure were within power and not illegal, because the action remained consistent with the parent Act and Rules and filled the regulatory vacuum. The challenge was also weakened by the appellants&#039; prior withdrawal of a similar writ petition, attracting the principle against approbating and reprobating.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 868 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165288</link>
      <description>Executive aviation directions issued under the Aircraft Act and Aircraft Rules may be altered, suspended, or substituted by the competent authority where they operate as special directions or civil aviation requirements rather than subordinate legislation. The Court held that keeping the later Civil Aviation Requirements in abeyance and reviving the earlier Aeronautical Information Circular as an interim measure were within power and not illegal, because the action remained consistent with the parent Act and Rules and filled the regulatory vacuum. The challenge was also weakened by the appellants&#039; prior withdrawal of a similar writ petition, attracting the principle against approbating and reprobating.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>