<?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>2005 (4) TMI 620 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275827</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court set aside the High Court&#039;s order and dismissed the writ petitions, ruling that the permits issued on notified routes were illegal. The Court emphasized the prohibition of private operators on notified routes without proper scheme amendments. The decision highlighted the significance of adhering to notified schemes and upheld the principle of excluding private operators from such routes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2018 14:56:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 620 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275827</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court set aside the High Court&#039;s order and dismissed the writ petitions, ruling that the permits issued on notified routes were illegal. The Court emphasized the prohibition of private operators on notified routes without proper scheme amendments. The decision highlighted the significance of adhering to notified schemes and upheld the principle of excluding private operators from such routes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>