<?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>1997 (3) TMI 636 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283387</link>
    <description>The court partly allowed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the U.P Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983. It issued a writ of mandamus directing the Special Judge not to apply certain provisions of the Act to the petitioner and not to charge or convict her for specific offenses listed in the Act for the sessions trials in question. The stay order was vacated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:42:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 636 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283387</link>
      <description>The court partly allowed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the U.P Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983. It issued a writ of mandamus directing the Special Judge not to apply certain provisions of the Act to the petitioner and not to charge or convict her for specific offenses listed in the Act for the sessions trials in question. The stay order was vacated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283387</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>