<?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>1957 (5) TMI 49 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307206</link>
    <description>Certiorari is available for jurisdictional error, illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction, or a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record, but not for reappreciation of facts or correction of a merely wrong decision. On the materials before the Deputy Custodian General, the appellants&#039; allotment was capable of cancellation under the rehabilitation scheme and relevant departmental instructions, and the objections raised disclosed no patent legal error. The alleged mistakes were treated as factual matters or at most non-supervisory errors of law, so interference under Article 226 was not justified and the challenge to cancellation failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:49:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708802" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (5) TMI 49 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307206</link>
      <description>Certiorari is available for jurisdictional error, illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction, or a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record, but not for reappreciation of facts or correction of a merely wrong decision. On the materials before the Deputy Custodian General, the appellants&#039; allotment was capable of cancellation under the rehabilitation scheme and relevant departmental instructions, and the objections raised disclosed no patent legal error. The alleged mistakes were treated as factual matters or at most non-supervisory errors of law, so interference under Article 226 was not justified and the challenge to cancellation failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>