<?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>2018 (4) TMI 1597 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275421</link>
    <description>Section 11(f) confers a broad power on the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions to determine and declare the minority status of an existing educational institution, while Section 10(1) is confined to obtaining a no objection certificate for establishing a new minority educational institution. Read harmoniously, the provisions do not create concurrent routes for establishment; they preserve the Commission&#039;s declaratory jurisdiction over existing institutions and leave initial establishment to the competent authority. Article 30 was treated as supporting this construction. The validity of the status declaration was upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 07:07:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536736" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1597 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275421</link>
      <description>Section 11(f) confers a broad power on the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions to determine and declare the minority status of an existing educational institution, while Section 10(1) is confined to obtaining a no objection certificate for establishing a new minority educational institution. Read harmoniously, the provisions do not create concurrent routes for establishment; they preserve the Commission&#039;s declaratory jurisdiction over existing institutions and leave initial establishment to the competent authority. Article 30 was treated as supporting this construction. The validity of the status declaration was upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275421</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>