<?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>1979 (11) TMI 264 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171476</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the appellant did not belong to the &#039;Mana&#039; community specified in the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and thus was not qualified to contest the election from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The Court affirmed the High Court&#039;s decision, emphasizing that the appellant&#039;s community lacked affinity with the &#039;Gond&#039; tribe, a prerequisite for being considered part of the &#039;Mana&#039; community listed in the Schedule. The Court rejected the appellant&#039;s argument regarding the interpretation of the amendments made by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, and dismissed the appeal with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:39:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390928" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (11) TMI 264 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171476</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the appellant did not belong to the &#039;Mana&#039; community specified in the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and thus was not qualified to contest the election from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The Court affirmed the High Court&#039;s decision, emphasizing that the appellant&#039;s community lacked affinity with the &#039;Gond&#039; tribe, a prerequisite for being considered part of the &#039;Mana&#039; community listed in the Schedule. The Court rejected the appellant&#039;s argument regarding the interpretation of the amendments made by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, and dismissed the appeal with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>