<?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>1975 (12) TMI 173 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182602</link>
    <description>A managing committee is not a statutory body merely because it is affiliated to a university and follows university statutes; an autonomous body does not become statutory unless created by or under statute. The dismissal of a teacher was ineffective because the governing law made prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor a condition precedent to termination, so non-compliance rendered the dismissal void in law. However, declaratory and injunctive relief remained discretionary under the Specific Relief Act, and the court refused relief where delay, hardship, and the impact on the institution and students made intervention inequitable. The decree for the teacher was therefore set aside and the suit dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2016 11:34:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (12) TMI 173 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182602</link>
      <description>A managing committee is not a statutory body merely because it is affiliated to a university and follows university statutes; an autonomous body does not become statutory unless created by or under statute. The dismissal of a teacher was ineffective because the governing law made prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor a condition precedent to termination, so non-compliance rendered the dismissal void in law. However, declaratory and injunctive relief remained discretionary under the Specific Relief Act, and the court refused relief where delay, hardship, and the impact on the institution and students made intervention inequitable. The decree for the teacher was therefore set aside and the suit dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182602</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>