<?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>1973 (10) TMI 52 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168265</link>
    <description>Section 91 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 was upheld because the Act&#039;s scheme, preamble and operative provisions supplied sufficient legislative guidance, so the power to exempt or modify application of the Act was only ancillary and not an abdication of essential legislative function. The State could relax the outer limit for supersession under Section 53(3), but delegated power could not operate retrospectively without express or necessary implication; the impugned retrospective orders were therefore ultra vires. The expression &quot;person or persons&quot; in Section 53(1) included a co-operative society. An election of office-bearers not conducted in the manner prescribed by Rule 41 was invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:16:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (10) TMI 52 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168265</link>
      <description>Section 91 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 was upheld because the Act&#039;s scheme, preamble and operative provisions supplied sufficient legislative guidance, so the power to exempt or modify application of the Act was only ancillary and not an abdication of essential legislative function. The State could relax the outer limit for supersession under Section 53(3), but delegated power could not operate retrospectively without express or necessary implication; the impugned retrospective orders were therefore ultra vires. The expression &quot;person or persons&quot; in Section 53(1) included a co-operative society. An election of office-bearers not conducted in the manner prescribed by Rule 41 was invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168265</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>