<?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>1965 (11) TMI 149 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187160</link>
    <description>A special rent-control statute that bars challenges to orders made under it excludes civil court review of their merits, correctness, or propriety, but not a plea that the order is a legal nullity for want of jurisdiction, breach of mandatory requirements, or violation of natural justice. The statute&#039;s revisional power was construed in its own wide terms, allowing the Commissioner to confirm or set aside the District Magistrate&#039;s order where illegality or material irregularity existed; it could not be narrowed by importing the limits of the civil procedure revision provision. On that basis, the Commissioner&#039;s permission was held valid and the broader challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:49:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (11) TMI 149 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187160</link>
      <description>A special rent-control statute that bars challenges to orders made under it excludes civil court review of their merits, correctness, or propriety, but not a plea that the order is a legal nullity for want of jurisdiction, breach of mandatory requirements, or violation of natural justice. The statute&#039;s revisional power was construed in its own wide terms, allowing the Commissioner to confirm or set aside the District Magistrate&#039;s order where illegality or material irregularity existed; it could not be narrowed by importing the limits of the civil procedure revision provision. On that basis, the Commissioner&#039;s permission was held valid and the broader challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>