<?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 (10) TMI 150 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174218</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the requirement of laying the notification before Parliament was directory, not mandatory, and thus the non-laying did not invalidate it. The Court upheld the validity of the Control Order and the notification setting maximum selling prices of iron and steel, without addressing other arguments raised by the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2015 15:37:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (10) TMI 150 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174218</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the requirement of laying the notification before Parliament was directory, not mandatory, and thus the non-laying did not invalidate it. The Court upheld the validity of the Control Order and the notification setting maximum selling prices of iron and steel, without addressing other arguments raised by the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>