<?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>2006 (8) TMI 653 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197873</link>
    <description>An unregistered trade union and its office-bearer could not maintain a writ challenge where registration had been suppressed and material facts were not fully disclosed. A writ of quo warranto lies only if the appointment violates a statutory provision, and the Court found no such infringement because the governing statute empowered Government appointment, allowed the Managing Director to hold office during its pleasure, and did not prohibit contractual engagement. The appellant&#039;s experience satisfied the prescribed qualifications, the administrative memorandum could not override the Act and Rules, and allegations of legal malice were unsupported. The appointment was therefore upheld and the High Court judgment set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 653 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197873</link>
      <description>An unregistered trade union and its office-bearer could not maintain a writ challenge where registration had been suppressed and material facts were not fully disclosed. A writ of quo warranto lies only if the appointment violates a statutory provision, and the Court found no such infringement because the governing statute empowered Government appointment, allowed the Managing Director to hold office during its pleasure, and did not prohibit contractual engagement. The appellant&#039;s experience satisfied the prescribed qualifications, the administrative memorandum could not override the Act and Rules, and allegations of legal malice were unsupported. The appointment was therefore upheld and the High Court judgment set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>