<?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>1950 (12) TMI 27 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174465</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain petitions for special leave to appeal against judgments of the Hyderabad High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Constitution did not provide for such relief, and assuming jurisdiction beyond the clear words of the relevant articles would constitute judicial overreach. Therefore, the petitions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:45:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1950 (12) TMI 27 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174465</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain petitions for special leave to appeal against judgments of the Hyderabad High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Constitution did not provide for such relief, and assuming jurisdiction beyond the clear words of the relevant articles would constitute judicial overreach. Therefore, the petitions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>