<?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>2016 (10) TMI 1229 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275146</link>
    <description>A competent State Legislature may retrospectively amend an existing law for a period preceding the State&#039;s creation if it acts within its legislative field and constitutional limits. The validating amendment was effective because it removed the statutory foundation of the earlier judgment by altering the office&#039;s nature and tenure, so the prior discrimination finding no longer survived. The office holders had no vested right to continue for the original term, as their position was a statutory one capable of retrospective redefinition. The amended scheme also did not offend Article 14 because the classifications reflected differences in the committees&#039; statutory character and functioning.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2018 06:49:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=535023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 1229 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275146</link>
      <description>A competent State Legislature may retrospectively amend an existing law for a period preceding the State&#039;s creation if it acts within its legislative field and constitutional limits. The validating amendment was effective because it removed the statutory foundation of the earlier judgment by altering the office&#039;s nature and tenure, so the prior discrimination finding no longer survived. The office holders had no vested right to continue for the original term, as their position was a statutory one capable of retrospective redefinition. The amended scheme also did not offend Article 14 because the classifications reflected differences in the committees&#039; statutory character and functioning.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>