<?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>2008 (3) TMI 778 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307590</link>
    <description>Valid consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act can be inferred without any prescribed form, and substantial compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution is sufficient for executive action. The Supreme Court found that the Central notification under Section 3 and the extension order under Section 5 were in place, and that the 5 February 1957 State communication adequately showed consent by the competent authority. The Court distinguished cases involving only file notings or an unproven decision, and concluded that the State had validly consented. The resulting prosecution by the Central Bureau of Investigation was therefore not without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2023 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=711644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 778 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307590</link>
      <description>Valid consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act can be inferred without any prescribed form, and substantial compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution is sufficient for executive action. The Supreme Court found that the Central notification under Section 3 and the extension order under Section 5 were in place, and that the 5 February 1957 State communication adequately showed consent by the competent authority. The Court distinguished cases involving only file notings or an unproven decision, and concluded that the State had validly consented. The resulting prosecution by the Central Bureau of Investigation was therefore not without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>