<?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>2010 (12) TMI 1159 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175659</link>
    <description>The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 provides a statutory framework for grant, refusal, revocation and appeal against authorisation to operate a payment system. The text states that where the statute provides a complete appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should not be used to seek interim continuation of the authorisation instead of pursuing that appeal. It also notes that the petition was treated as unsupported by proper authority from the foreign company holding the authorisation, and that no material part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench. On that basis, the writ petition was described as non-maintainable for lack of locus standi, want of territorial jurisdiction and misuse of the writ process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2015 16:38:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407196" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 1159 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175659</link>
      <description>The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 provides a statutory framework for grant, refusal, revocation and appeal against authorisation to operate a payment system. The text states that where the statute provides a complete appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should not be used to seek interim continuation of the authorisation instead of pursuing that appeal. It also notes that the petition was treated as unsupported by proper authority from the foreign company holding the authorisation, and that no material part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench. On that basis, the writ petition was described as non-maintainable for lack of locus standi, want of territorial jurisdiction and misuse of the writ process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>