<?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>1968 (8) TMI 191 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172827</link>
    <description>A statutory power to purchase a licensee&#039;s undertaking under section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 had to be exercised strictly in the manner required by the statute because it affected property rights. The notice was invalid because it did not expressly call upon the licensee to sell the undertaking at the expiry of the relevant period; instead, it merely stated that the Board had decided to exercise, and would exercise, the option of purchase. Its internal inconsistency also meant the licensee could not be certain that a valid statutory notice had been served. The Board therefore could not compel sale of the undertaking.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2015 10:57:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (8) TMI 191 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172827</link>
      <description>A statutory power to purchase a licensee&#039;s undertaking under section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 had to be exercised strictly in the manner required by the statute because it affected property rights. The notice was invalid because it did not expressly call upon the licensee to sell the undertaking at the expiry of the relevant period; instead, it merely stated that the Board had decided to exercise, and would exercise, the option of purchase. Its internal inconsistency also meant the licensee could not be certain that a valid statutory notice had been served. The Board therefore could not compel sale of the undertaking.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>