<?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>1960 (8) TMI 92 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189035</link>
    <description>Statutes of general application do not bind the State unless legislative intent appears through express words or necessary implication. This rule operates as a principle of statutory construction continuing under the constitutional scheme, rather than as a personal sovereign prerogative. Penal provisions under the Calcutta Municipal Act contained neither express language binding the Government nor an implication that Government liability was required for the Act to operate effectively. Proceedings against a government officer for conduct performed in governmental duties therefore could not be sustained, because the penal provisions did not apply to the Government.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:31:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (8) TMI 92 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189035</link>
      <description>Statutes of general application do not bind the State unless legislative intent appears through express words or necessary implication. This rule operates as a principle of statutory construction continuing under the constitutional scheme, rather than as a personal sovereign prerogative. Penal provisions under the Calcutta Municipal Act contained neither express language binding the Government nor an implication that Government liability was required for the Act to operate effectively. Proceedings against a government officer for conduct performed in governmental duties therefore could not be sustained, because the penal provisions did not apply to the Government.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189035</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>