<?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>1947 (1) TMI 16 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292480</link>
    <description>Section 101 of the British North America Act, 1867 was read as conferring plenary power on the Dominion Parliament to establish a general court of appeal for Canada, and the Statute of Westminster, 1931 removed earlier imperial impediments to legislation affecting appeals to His Majesty in Council. On that basis, the Parliament could make the Supreme Court of Canada&#039;s appellate jurisdiction final and exclusive, because an effective national appellate system necessarily included the power to exclude parallel appeals from provincial courts and to override conflicting provincial appellate competence. The proposed distinction between criminal and civil appeals, or between Dominion and provincial subject-matters, was rejected as inconsistent with a coherent Canadian appellate structure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 1947 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2020 13:16:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=631209" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1947 (1) TMI 16 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292480</link>
      <description>Section 101 of the British North America Act, 1867 was read as conferring plenary power on the Dominion Parliament to establish a general court of appeal for Canada, and the Statute of Westminster, 1931 removed earlier imperial impediments to legislation affecting appeals to His Majesty in Council. On that basis, the Parliament could make the Supreme Court of Canada&#039;s appellate jurisdiction final and exclusive, because an effective national appellate system necessarily included the power to exclude parallel appeals from provincial courts and to override conflicting provincial appellate competence. The proposed distinction between criminal and civil appeals, or between Dominion and provincial subject-matters, was rejected as inconsistent with a coherent Canadian appellate structure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 1947 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>