<?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>1997 (2) TMI 550 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175095</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court&#039;s decision regarding the respondent&#039;s reinstatement. The judgment emphasized that enforcing a wrong decision does not entitle an individual to claim equality or parity under Article 14. The Court highlighted the importance of having an enforceable right to seek relief and concluded that the High Court&#039;s direction for reinstatement was erroneous. The appeal was allowed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2015 11:04:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 550 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175095</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court&#039;s decision regarding the respondent&#039;s reinstatement. The judgment emphasized that enforcing a wrong decision does not entitle an individual to claim equality or parity under Article 14. The Court highlighted the importance of having an enforceable right to seek relief and concluded that the High Court&#039;s direction for reinstatement was erroneous. The appeal was allowed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>