<?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>1978 (11) TMI 155 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171419</link>
    <description>An appeal against conviction and sentence does not abate on the appellant&#039;s death where the governing proviso permits near relatives to continue the proceedings after leave is granted. The article also states that sanction for prosecution is valid when given by the authority competent to remove the public servant from service under the applicable service rules and a saved presidential order; on that basis, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was treated as the competent sanctioning authority for the relevant post. The cited contrary authority was distinguished on its facts and reasoning. The result discussed is that the abatement objection failed and the sanction challenge was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:10:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (11) TMI 155 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171419</link>
      <description>An appeal against conviction and sentence does not abate on the appellant&#039;s death where the governing proviso permits near relatives to continue the proceedings after leave is granted. The article also states that sanction for prosecution is valid when given by the authority competent to remove the public servant from service under the applicable service rules and a saved presidential order; on that basis, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was treated as the competent sanctioning authority for the relevant post. The cited contrary authority was distinguished on its facts and reasoning. The result discussed is that the abatement objection failed and the sanction challenge was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>