<?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>2008 (5) TMI 722 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279524</link>
    <description>The Sikh Judicial Commission was construed as a body to be constituted from time to time, so its members do not hold office in perpetuity or for life; a purposive and harmonious reading of the statute, in light of its scheme and the Constitution, rejected perpetual tenure as inconsistent with the Act and Articles 14, 16 and 310. The statutory direction under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 was also treated as a valid basis for the Government of Punjab&#039;s action in relation to the Commission, because the Central Government had not abdicated its essential power and the challenge of want of competence or excessive delegation was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:03:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=563854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 722 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279524</link>
      <description>The Sikh Judicial Commission was construed as a body to be constituted from time to time, so its members do not hold office in perpetuity or for life; a purposive and harmonious reading of the statute, in light of its scheme and the Constitution, rejected perpetual tenure as inconsistent with the Act and Articles 14, 16 and 310. The statutory direction under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 was also treated as a valid basis for the Government of Punjab&#039;s action in relation to the Commission, because the Central Government had not abdicated its essential power and the challenge of want of competence or excessive delegation was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>