<?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>1995 (3) TMI 466 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168368</link>
    <description>Private engineering and technical colleges were treated as outside the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 because the Rules framed under the Act confined the regulatory scheme to specified categories of colleges, including Arts and Science, Teachers Training, Physical Education, Oriental, Social Work and Music colleges. The composite statutory scheme, read with the definitions of &quot;college&quot; and &quot;Director&quot; in the Rules, indicated that the Act&#039;s machinery was intended for institutions under the Directorate of Collegiate Education, not for technical institutions under the Directorate of Technical Education. The omission of engineering and technical colleges in the Rules was relied on as contemporanea expositio to construe the parent Act consistently with that exclusion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 466 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168368</link>
      <description>Private engineering and technical colleges were treated as outside the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 because the Rules framed under the Act confined the regulatory scheme to specified categories of colleges, including Arts and Science, Teachers Training, Physical Education, Oriental, Social Work and Music colleges. The composite statutory scheme, read with the definitions of &quot;college&quot; and &quot;Director&quot; in the Rules, indicated that the Act&#039;s machinery was intended for institutions under the Directorate of Collegiate Education, not for technical institutions under the Directorate of Technical Education. The omission of engineering and technical colleges in the Rules was relied on as contemporanea expositio to construe the parent Act consistently with that exclusion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>