<?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>1988 (2) TMI 12 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24564</link>
    <description>The Allahabad HC upheld a notification constituting a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class with Statewide jurisdiction over specified economic offences, holding that the Code of Criminal Procedure permitted extension of local jurisdiction across the State and authorisation of special courts for particular classes of cases. It further rejected the Article 14 challenge because the classification was intelligible and rationally connected to the object of specialised, speedy trial. The Article 21 challenge also failed because the arrangement was aimed at expeditious disposal, not delay or oppression, and the writ petition was dismissed on all substantive grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:48:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63562" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 12 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24564</link>
      <description>The Allahabad HC upheld a notification constituting a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class with Statewide jurisdiction over specified economic offences, holding that the Code of Criminal Procedure permitted extension of local jurisdiction across the State and authorisation of special courts for particular classes of cases. It further rejected the Article 14 challenge because the classification was intelligible and rationally connected to the object of specialised, speedy trial. The Article 21 challenge also failed because the arrangement was aimed at expeditious disposal, not delay or oppression, and the writ petition was dismissed on all substantive grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>