<?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>2019 (8) TMI 1904 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313965</link>
    <description>The Citizenship Act, 1955 does not imply a requirement of prior intimation before blacklisting an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder or cancelling OCI registration under section 7D. The Court noted that the Central Government may exercise this power for reasons linked to sovereignty, integrity, security, friendly relations with foreign countries, or the general public, and that such decisions may be communicated at arrival or through other appropriate means. A uniform rule requiring advance notice cannot be read into the statute or visa regime unless expressly provided. Observations suggesting otherwise were modified in favour of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2024 06:55:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752609" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1904 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313965</link>
      <description>The Citizenship Act, 1955 does not imply a requirement of prior intimation before blacklisting an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder or cancelling OCI registration under section 7D. The Court noted that the Central Government may exercise this power for reasons linked to sovereignty, integrity, security, friendly relations with foreign countries, or the general public, and that such decisions may be communicated at arrival or through other appropriate means. A uniform rule requiring advance notice cannot be read into the statute or visa regime unless expressly provided. Observations suggesting otherwise were modified in favour of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>