<?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>1965 (9) TMI 82 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463558</link>
    <description>Article 165 confers constitutional status on the Advocate-General and permits the Governor to assign duties of a legal character, including appearance in proceedings where the State is interested. The Advocate-General also retains the ordinary right to practise as an advocate, and the office does not make him a Government servant. On the rules described, contempt matters were placed with the Government Advocate, but the governing provisions did not bar the Advocate-General from appearing, and the discretion under Rule 10(b) was preserved. The stated view is that a State direction to appear in defence in contempt proceedings was within the constitutional and regulatory scheme, and the contrary construction of the rules was incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2025 10:20:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=848587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (9) TMI 82 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463558</link>
      <description>Article 165 confers constitutional status on the Advocate-General and permits the Governor to assign duties of a legal character, including appearance in proceedings where the State is interested. The Advocate-General also retains the ordinary right to practise as an advocate, and the office does not make him a Government servant. On the rules described, contempt matters were placed with the Government Advocate, but the governing provisions did not bar the Advocate-General from appearing, and the discretion under Rule 10(b) was preserved. The stated view is that a State direction to appear in defence in contempt proceedings was within the constitutional and regulatory scheme, and the contrary construction of the rules was incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>