<?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>1995 (12) TMI 390 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183304</link>
    <description>The Delhi High Court held that compulsory audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General could not be judicially directed for the Reserve Bank of India, the State Bank of India, and other public sector banks, because Articles 148 and 149 leave the CAG&#039;s functions to parliamentary determination and the governing banking statutes already provide specific audit mechanisms. It further held that Government company provisions of the Companies Act did not apply to these bodies, as they are creatures of special statutes rather than companies incorporated under that Act. The Court therefore declined to extend audit obligations by judicial interpretation and left the matter to legislative policy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2016 12:30:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 390 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183304</link>
      <description>The Delhi High Court held that compulsory audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General could not be judicially directed for the Reserve Bank of India, the State Bank of India, and other public sector banks, because Articles 148 and 149 leave the CAG&#039;s functions to parliamentary determination and the governing banking statutes already provide specific audit mechanisms. It further held that Government company provisions of the Companies Act did not apply to these bodies, as they are creatures of special statutes rather than companies incorporated under that Act. The Court therefore declined to extend audit obligations by judicial interpretation and left the matter to legislative policy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>