<?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>1971 (7) TMI 157 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173005</link>
    <description>Executive instructions regulating grant and recognition of schools were upheld as a structured scheme, because the impugned clauses were read with the remaining conditions, application form, and official guidance that supplied concrete criteria on local need, competition, managerial competence, and financial stability. The constitutional challenge failed: Article 19 could not be invoked during the Emergency, the Article 14 attack was rejected because the process was reasoned and channelled through local committees with Government review, and the absence of a separate oral hearing did not itself breach natural justice. The individual refusals of permission were also sustained because the applicants did not meet the prescribed requirements, while permission granted to a rival institution was supported by findings of genuine need and financial soundness.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2015 12:17:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (7) TMI 157 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173005</link>
      <description>Executive instructions regulating grant and recognition of schools were upheld as a structured scheme, because the impugned clauses were read with the remaining conditions, application form, and official guidance that supplied concrete criteria on local need, competition, managerial competence, and financial stability. The constitutional challenge failed: Article 19 could not be invoked during the Emergency, the Article 14 attack was rejected because the process was reasoned and channelled through local committees with Government review, and the absence of a separate oral hearing did not itself breach natural justice. The individual refusals of permission were also sustained because the applicants did not meet the prescribed requirements, while permission granted to a rival institution was supported by findings of genuine need and financial soundness.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>