<?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>1996 (7) TMI 560 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172177</link>
    <description>A substituted statutory rule operates by repealing the earlier provision and replacing it for the relevant period, so the earlier rule continues to govern the time when it was in force. A rule made under Article 309 may validly have retrospective operation if the rule-making power so permits. On that basis, the amendment substituting Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules was not invalid merely because the earlier provision had ceased to exist, and it could operate retrospectively for the past period in question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 23:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 560 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172177</link>
      <description>A substituted statutory rule operates by repealing the earlier provision and replacing it for the relevant period, so the earlier rule continues to govern the time when it was in force. A rule made under Article 309 may validly have retrospective operation if the rule-making power so permits. On that basis, the amendment substituting Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules was not invalid merely because the earlier provision had ceased to exist, and it could operate retrospectively for the past period in question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>