<?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 1161 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302778</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the Respondents&#039; claim for promotion and consequential benefits was barred by delay and laches. The Court emphasized that the Respondents failed to challenge the ad hoc promotion within a reasonable time, negating their entitlement. The Court set aside the orders of the High Court and tribunal, stating that the granting of notional promotional benefits was unjustified. The appeals were allowed with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2022 16:33:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=682375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 1161 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302778</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the Respondents&#039; claim for promotion and consequential benefits was barred by delay and laches. The Court emphasized that the Respondents failed to challenge the ad hoc promotion within a reasonable time, negating their entitlement. The Court set aside the orders of the High Court and tribunal, stating that the granting of notional promotional benefits was unjustified. The appeals were allowed with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>