<?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>2014 (4) TMI 1257 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284425</link>
    <description>A delegated administrative power may be carried out through authorisation of a subordinate officer for ministerial or ancillary acts, even though essential legislative functions cannot be further delegated. On the statutory scheme described, the Board could delegate powers to the Chairman, and the Chairman could authorise an officer to issue ejectment notices after the competent authority had already decided to terminate the lease. The notice was treated as an step implementing that decision, not as a fresh exercise of the power to terminate. The notices were therefore held valid, there was no impermissible sub-delegation, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=594461" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 1257 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284425</link>
      <description>A delegated administrative power may be carried out through authorisation of a subordinate officer for ministerial or ancillary acts, even though essential legislative functions cannot be further delegated. On the statutory scheme described, the Board could delegate powers to the Chairman, and the Chairman could authorise an officer to issue ejectment notices after the competent authority had already decided to terminate the lease. The notice was treated as an step implementing that decision, not as a fresh exercise of the power to terminate. The notices were therefore held valid, there was no impermissible sub-delegation, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>