https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286942 Rule 17 of the Madras Employees' Insurance Court Rules, 1951, was held to go beyond the rule-making power under Section 96(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, because that provision authorised rules on procedure before the Courts and execution of orders, not the creation of a limitation period. In the absence of any express or necessarily implied power to prescribe limitation, the State could not use delegated legislation to supply that gap. The rule was therefore ultra vires, and the application was not barred by limitation. en-us Fri, 04 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Mar 2020 14:25:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286942 Rule 17 of the Madras Employees' Insurance Court Rules, 1951, was held to go beyond the rule-making power under Section 96(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, because that provision authorised rules on procedure before the Courts and execution of orders, not the creation of a limitation period. In the absence of any express or necessarily implied power to prescribe limitation, the State could not use delegated legislation to supply that gap. The rule was therefore ultra vires, and the application was not barred by limitation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286942