<?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>2024 (4) TMI 1402 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468312</link>
    <description>Natural justice, curative appellate or revisional review, and reasonable likelihood of bias were examined in relation to appointments challenged for non-impleadment of selected candidates and relatives&#039; participation in selection. Divergent judicial views considered whether denial of notice before the Collector caused incurable prejudice, or was remedied through later revision and writ proceedings. The discussion also addresses whether a revision confined to legal questions could cure an initial denial of hearing. On bias, it considers whether admitted family relationships, interview and marking functions, and the marking pattern created a real danger of bias despite recusal-related circumstances. No common majority rule or single operative outcome emerged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:41:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 1402 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468312</link>
      <description>Natural justice, curative appellate or revisional review, and reasonable likelihood of bias were examined in relation to appointments challenged for non-impleadment of selected candidates and relatives&#039; participation in selection. Divergent judicial views considered whether denial of notice before the Collector caused incurable prejudice, or was remedied through later revision and writ proceedings. The discussion also addresses whether a revision confined to legal questions could cure an initial denial of hearing. On bias, it considers whether admitted family relationships, interview and marking functions, and the marking pattern created a real danger of bias despite recusal-related circumstances. No common majority rule or single operative outcome emerged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468312</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>