<?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>1927 (5) TMI 2 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199245</link>
    <description>Executive recovery measures under the Bombay District Police Act were not invalid merely because of defects in form, since the statutory scheme allowed substantial conformity and cured defects of expression; the levy itself was not undone by substituting the persons from whom recovery was sought. However, recovery of the additional police charge had to proceed through the Municipality first, and direct action by the Collector was premature because that statutory step was bypassed. A mandatory notice requirement under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure strictly applied even where injunction was sought, so the suit was not maintainable before expiry of the notice period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 1927 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2018 17:20:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1927 (5) TMI 2 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199245</link>
      <description>Executive recovery measures under the Bombay District Police Act were not invalid merely because of defects in form, since the statutory scheme allowed substantial conformity and cured defects of expression; the levy itself was not undone by substituting the persons from whom recovery was sought. However, recovery of the additional police charge had to proceed through the Municipality first, and direct action by the Collector was premature because that statutory step was bypassed. A mandatory notice requirement under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure strictly applied even where injunction was sought, so the suit was not maintainable before expiry of the notice period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 1927 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>