<?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>2017 (2) TMI 1344 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200856</link>
    <description>Practice as an architect under the Architects Act, 1972 is not open to unregistered persons. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had erred in accepting the contention that registration is unnecessary, and clarified that the Act does not permit anyone to practise as an architect without registration. The appellant&#039;s contention was rejected, and the position that architectural practice is confined to registered architects was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:07:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1344 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200856</link>
      <description>Practice as an architect under the Architects Act, 1972 is not open to unregistered persons. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had erred in accepting the contention that registration is unnecessary, and clarified that the Act does not permit anyone to practise as an architect without registration. The appellant&#039;s contention was rejected, and the position that architectural practice is confined to registered architects was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>