<?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>1956 (10) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307225</link>
    <description>The High Court quashed the Tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction to investigate the charge under Section 125(3) of the Representation of the People Act, stating the Tribunal had no authority. The appeal seeking prohibition was dismissed as the Tribunal had finished its inquiry. The order for costs against the appellant was overturned, with no costs ordered in the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2023 15:14:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (10) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307225</link>
      <description>The High Court quashed the Tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction to investigate the charge under Section 125(3) of the Representation of the People Act, stating the Tribunal had no authority. The appeal seeking prohibition was dismissed as the Tribunal had finished its inquiry. The order for costs against the appellant was overturned, with no costs ordered in the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>