<?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>1966 (3) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289302</link>
    <description>A legislative enabling provision is not invalid as excessive delegation where the legislature has laid down the policy and limited the power to reallocating administrative functions; the provision was upheld because it formed part of a broader statutory scheme and did not transfer an essential legislative function. Land acquisition notifications for industrial and residential development were sustained because public purpose depends on community need and local conditions, no collateral or colourable object was shown, and the statute did not require a prior detailed scheme before issuing notifications. Fresh presidential assent was not required for a consequential notification issued under an Act that had already received assent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2020 13:59:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618303" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289302</link>
      <description>A legislative enabling provision is not invalid as excessive delegation where the legislature has laid down the policy and limited the power to reallocating administrative functions; the provision was upheld because it formed part of a broader statutory scheme and did not transfer an essential legislative function. Land acquisition notifications for industrial and residential development were sustained because public purpose depends on community need and local conditions, no collateral or colourable object was shown, and the statute did not require a prior detailed scheme before issuing notifications. Fresh presidential assent was not required for a consequential notification issued under an Act that had already received assent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>