<?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>1974 (10) TMI 105 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183717</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that denying the government servant access to full witness statements hindered their ability to defend effectively. The State was directed to cover the respondent&#039;s costs, emphasizing the necessity of providing government servants with a genuine opportunity to defend themselves in disciplinary proceedings, including access to complete witness statements for cross-examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jun 2016 18:32:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (10) TMI 105 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183717</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that denying the government servant access to full witness statements hindered their ability to defend effectively. The State was directed to cover the respondent&#039;s costs, emphasizing the necessity of providing government servants with a genuine opportunity to defend themselves in disciplinary proceedings, including access to complete witness statements for cross-examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>