<?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>2013 (8) TMI 1156 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299814</link>
    <description>Section 21(2) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 was treated as mandating that the High Court hear the matters by a Division Bench, not a Single Judge. Because the statutory bench-strength requirement was obligatory, the Single Judge orders could not be sustained. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the proceedings to the respective Division Benches of the High Courts for decision on merits, with a request for expeditious disposal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2021 16:06:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 1156 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299814</link>
      <description>Section 21(2) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 was treated as mandating that the High Court hear the matters by a Division Bench, not a Single Judge. Because the statutory bench-strength requirement was obligatory, the Single Judge orders could not be sustained. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the proceedings to the respective Division Benches of the High Courts for decision on merits, with a request for expeditious disposal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>