<?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>1990 (12) TMI 345 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459888</link>
    <description>A public employee may be appointed as competent authority under the Act where the statutory scheme permits the Central Government to authorise any person or authority, and employment by the Corporation alone does not create automatic disqualification or a presumption of bias. However, an appointment will be invalid if the surrounding facts establish a real and reasonable apprehension of prejudice. On the stated material, the particular officer&#039;s role as a litigating party and her adverse steps in the dispute justified the challenge, so the appointment failed on bias grounds. The broader proposition that no employee of the Corporation can ever act as competent authority was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2025 13:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=785717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 345 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459888</link>
      <description>A public employee may be appointed as competent authority under the Act where the statutory scheme permits the Central Government to authorise any person or authority, and employment by the Corporation alone does not create automatic disqualification or a presumption of bias. However, an appointment will be invalid if the surrounding facts establish a real and reasonable apprehension of prejudice. On the stated material, the particular officer&#039;s role as a litigating party and her adverse steps in the dispute justified the challenge, so the appointment failed on bias grounds. The broader proposition that no employee of the Corporation can ever act as competent authority was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>