<?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>1972 (3) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293511</link>
    <description>Where no statute, rule or regulation fixes a quorum for a committee, a duly noticed meeting attended by the majority of its members is valid and its recommendation remains effective. The Court noted that notice had been given to all members and that the absence of one member did not invalidate the Selection Committee&#039;s meeting or the recommendation for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. It also found that the High Court had relied on assumptions not forming the basis of the Chancellor&#039;s order. The cancellation of the appointment could not therefore be sustained, and the appellant&#039;s appointment as Vice-Chancellor was restored as valid from the appointed date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2021 09:51:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=636363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (3) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293511</link>
      <description>Where no statute, rule or regulation fixes a quorum for a committee, a duly noticed meeting attended by the majority of its members is valid and its recommendation remains effective. The Court noted that notice had been given to all members and that the absence of one member did not invalidate the Selection Committee&#039;s meeting or the recommendation for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. It also found that the High Court had relied on assumptions not forming the basis of the Chancellor&#039;s order. The cancellation of the appointment could not therefore be sustained, and the appellant&#039;s appointment as Vice-Chancellor was restored as valid from the appointed date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>