<?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>2023 (4) TMI 1450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464633</link>
    <description>Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 requires delayed registration of a birth or death, after one year, only on an order of a Magistrate of the First Class or a Presidency Magistrate following verification of correctness. The Karnataka amendment to Rule 9 substituted an Assistant Commissioner for that statutory judicial authority, thereby changing the mechanism fixed by the Act. Because delegated rule-making under Section 30 must remain within the parent enactment and cannot contradict a mandatory statutory provision, the amendment was treated as inconsistent with the Act and therefore ultra vires, illegal, and void.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 11:53:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=863096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 1450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464633</link>
      <description>Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 requires delayed registration of a birth or death, after one year, only on an order of a Magistrate of the First Class or a Presidency Magistrate following verification of correctness. The Karnataka amendment to Rule 9 substituted an Assistant Commissioner for that statutory judicial authority, thereby changing the mechanism fixed by the Act. Because delegated rule-making under Section 30 must remain within the parent enactment and cannot contradict a mandatory statutory provision, the amendment was treated as inconsistent with the Act and therefore ultra vires, illegal, and void.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464633</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>