<?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>2009 (1) TMI 899 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189799</link>
    <description>Eligibility as an &quot;unemployed youth&quot; under an excise advertisement and governing order depends on the contextual definition, including the prescribed age, Employment Exchange registration, and certification by the specified authority. The expression does not require absolute idleness or complete absence of income; seasonal or family work yielding only subsistence income does not itself disqualify an applicant who meets the stated conditions. The challenge to the certification mechanism was raised too late, while the validity of the governing order was not challenged. The selection and licence in favour of the eligible applicants were therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:14:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=456015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 899 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189799</link>
      <description>Eligibility as an &quot;unemployed youth&quot; under an excise advertisement and governing order depends on the contextual definition, including the prescribed age, Employment Exchange registration, and certification by the specified authority. The expression does not require absolute idleness or complete absence of income; seasonal or family work yielding only subsistence income does not itself disqualify an applicant who meets the stated conditions. The challenge to the certification mechanism was raised too late, while the validity of the governing order was not challenged. The selection and licence in favour of the eligible applicants were therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>