<?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>1967 (2) TMI 111 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299570</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the notification declaring the area of a municipality to be a nagar under Section 9(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. It rejected challenges regarding the applicability of the Act to a municipal district, the inquiry process, delegation of powers to the Development Commissioner, and allegations of mala fide exercise of power. The court found that Section 9 did not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power. A separate judgment by one judge dissented on the constitutionality of Section 9, arguing that it delegated uncontrolled power to the government. Ultimately, the majority opinion dismissed the appeal, affirming the lawfulness of the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:58:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=664660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (2) TMI 111 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299570</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the notification declaring the area of a municipality to be a nagar under Section 9(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. It rejected challenges regarding the applicability of the Act to a municipal district, the inquiry process, delegation of powers to the Development Commissioner, and allegations of mala fide exercise of power. The court found that Section 9 did not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power. A separate judgment by one judge dissented on the constitutionality of Section 9, arguing that it delegated uncontrolled power to the government. Ultimately, the majority opinion dismissed the appeal, affirming the lawfulness of the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>