<?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>1961 (4) TMI 88 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168192</link>
    <description>Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 was treated as permitting ad hoc authorisation for Government contracts and arbitration references without any prescribed formal notification. On the facts, directions issued through the Secretary and the Executive Engineer&#039;s execution of the agreement were sufficient to show valid Government authorisation for the arbitration reference. The document also states that, under the Stamp Act, an unstamped original instrument may be validated, but a mere copy cannot; however, the award filed in court was held to be the original instrument signed in triplicate, despite being described as a certified copy, so the stamp objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2015 17:35:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 88 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168192</link>
      <description>Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 was treated as permitting ad hoc authorisation for Government contracts and arbitration references without any prescribed formal notification. On the facts, directions issued through the Secretary and the Executive Engineer&#039;s execution of the agreement were sufficient to show valid Government authorisation for the arbitration reference. The document also states that, under the Stamp Act, an unstamped original instrument may be validated, but a mere copy cannot; however, the award filed in court was held to be the original instrument signed in triplicate, despite being described as a certified copy, so the stamp objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168192</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>