<?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>1988 (7) TMI 406 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183968</link>
    <description>The Court held that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is within the legislative competence of Parliament. The Act prevails over State legislation, the premises in question are considered public premises, and the appointment of an Estate Officer from the respondent bank does not violate Article 14. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:14:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (7) TMI 406 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183968</link>
      <description>The Court held that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is within the legislative competence of Parliament. The Act prevails over State legislation, the premises in question are considered public premises, and the appointment of an Estate Officer from the respondent bank does not violate Article 14. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183968</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>