<?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>2004 (2) TMI 689 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177381</link>
    <description>Adoption of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline &amp; Appeal) Rules, 1999 by a corporation mutatis mutandis imports the procedure and safeguards of the Rules, but not the State authorities named in them unless the adopting instrument expressly so provides. The revisional power under Rule 13, which is framed for State Government servants and authorities subordinate to the State Government, could not automatically be exercised over corporation employees or corporation disciplinary orders. Any revisional authority must be a corresponding authority within the corporation. The State Government therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision, and the revisional order was without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 689 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177381</link>
      <description>Adoption of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline &amp; Appeal) Rules, 1999 by a corporation mutatis mutandis imports the procedure and safeguards of the Rules, but not the State authorities named in them unless the adopting instrument expressly so provides. The revisional power under Rule 13, which is framed for State Government servants and authorities subordinate to the State Government, could not automatically be exercised over corporation employees or corporation disciplinary orders. Any revisional authority must be a corresponding authority within the corporation. The State Government therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision, and the revisional order was without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>