<?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>1913 (2) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277395</link>
    <description>A statutory notification can validly empower a District Magistrate to cancel a local agent&#039;s licence where supervision conditions are breached, and that cancellation was upheld. The same relaxation, however, did not authorise the Magistrate to close a depot to recruiting under the Act, so that order was ultra vires. On State liability, tort claims for acts done by public servants under sovereign powers were not maintainable merely on employment grounds or ineffective ratification, and no liability for unliquidated damages was established. The alleged libel in an official Government order also failed because the publication was treated as privileged, absent proof of malice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 1913 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:15:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545230" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1913 (2) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277395</link>
      <description>A statutory notification can validly empower a District Magistrate to cancel a local agent&#039;s licence where supervision conditions are breached, and that cancellation was upheld. The same relaxation, however, did not authorise the Magistrate to close a depot to recruiting under the Act, so that order was ultra vires. On State liability, tort claims for acts done by public servants under sovereign powers were not maintainable merely on employment grounds or ineffective ratification, and no liability for unliquidated damages was established. The alleged libel in an official Government order also failed because the publication was treated as privileged, absent proof of malice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 1913 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>