<?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>1993 (3) TMI 371 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197341</link>
    <description>Resignation from the office of Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board was effective on communication to the competent departmental authority, because the statutory scheme required acceptance and Gazette notification only for resignation from Board membership, not for the Chairman&#039;s office. A Chairman appointed from among members could therefore relinquish the office by a unilateral act where the resignation letter sought immediate effect. As the person had ceased to be Chairman before scrutiny of nominations, he was not holding an office of profit on the scrutiny date, and rejection of the nomination was improper.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 18:01:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=502784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (3) TMI 371 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197341</link>
      <description>Resignation from the office of Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board was effective on communication to the competent departmental authority, because the statutory scheme required acceptance and Gazette notification only for resignation from Board membership, not for the Chairman&#039;s office. A Chairman appointed from among members could therefore relinquish the office by a unilateral act where the resignation letter sought immediate effect. As the person had ceased to be Chairman before scrutiny of nominations, he was not holding an office of profit on the scrutiny date, and rejection of the nomination was improper.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197341</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>