<?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>1989 (4) TMI 319 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168806</link>
    <description>Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 was treated as a valid power enabling the Central Government to extend existing State enactments to Chandigarh with limited restrictions or modifications, because it laid down the legislative policy and constituted a recognised method of transplanting laws to a Union Territory without a legislature. On that basis, the later notification extending the 1985 Punjab rent amendment to Chandigarh was regarded as valid, since the earlier parliamentary extension of the principal rent law did not bar subsequent amendments unless the later measure repealed, conflicted with, or was repugnant to the law already operating in Chandigarh. The stated ratio is that such extension remains permissible within the scope of the enabling provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379844" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (4) TMI 319 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168806</link>
      <description>Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 was treated as a valid power enabling the Central Government to extend existing State enactments to Chandigarh with limited restrictions or modifications, because it laid down the legislative policy and constituted a recognised method of transplanting laws to a Union Territory without a legislature. On that basis, the later notification extending the 1985 Punjab rent amendment to Chandigarh was regarded as valid, since the earlier parliamentary extension of the principal rent law did not bar subsequent amendments unless the later measure repealed, conflicted with, or was repugnant to the law already operating in Chandigarh. The stated ratio is that such extension remains permissible within the scope of the enabling provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168806</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>