<?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>1996 (3) TMI 546 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194199</link>
    <description>Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 confers broad revisional power on the Central Government to call for records and pass orders necessary to maintain legality under the Act and rules. That power extends to correcting an assignment order obtained by fraud or collusion, even if the same departmental hierarchy had earlier dealt with the matter. The objection that an authority cannot sit in appeal over its own order did not defeat this revisional jurisdiction on the facts stated. The fraudulent assignment was therefore open to interference and the revisionary order was treated as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:44:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 546 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194199</link>
      <description>Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 confers broad revisional power on the Central Government to call for records and pass orders necessary to maintain legality under the Act and rules. That power extends to correcting an assignment order obtained by fraud or collusion, even if the same departmental hierarchy had earlier dealt with the matter. The objection that an authority cannot sit in appeal over its own order did not defeat this revisional jurisdiction on the facts stated. The fraudulent assignment was therefore open to interference and the revisionary order was treated as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194199</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>