<?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>1962 (11) TMI 66 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182965</link>
    <description>Fixation or alteration of a bus stand under the transport-control framework, not the general traffic-control power, was held revisable under section 64A because section 68 and the relevant rules governed notified public service vehicle stands. Limitation for revision ran from the completed order, and the order was treated as complete only on publication of the notification that brought the stand into legal existence, so the revision was not time-barred. The earlier rejection did not attract merger because no operative order had yet arisen. The revisional order was nevertheless set aside for want of notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal after hearing affected persons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 May 2016 10:40:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (11) TMI 66 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182965</link>
      <description>Fixation or alteration of a bus stand under the transport-control framework, not the general traffic-control power, was held revisable under section 64A because section 68 and the relevant rules governed notified public service vehicle stands. Limitation for revision ran from the completed order, and the order was treated as complete only on publication of the notification that brought the stand into legal existence, so the revision was not time-barred. The earlier rejection did not attract merger because no operative order had yet arisen. The revisional order was nevertheless set aside for want of notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal after hearing affected persons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>