<?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>1968 (10) TMI 117 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471195</link>
    <description>Electoral disqualification for holding an office of profit arises where an engagement creates a continuing position with attached duties and a possibility of remuneration, even if payment depends on work performed and the engagement is terminable. Inclusion on a Railway panel of lawyers met this test because it required continuing duties to monitor litigation, notify the administration, seek adjournments when instructions were absent, and refrain from acting against any Railway; the engagement therefore disqualified the member. In contrast, a gazetted appointment as President of an Improvement Trust Tribunal did not establish that the office was held without evidence of acceptance, assumption of charge, or performance of functions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 10:33:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=918892" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (10) TMI 117 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471195</link>
      <description>Electoral disqualification for holding an office of profit arises where an engagement creates a continuing position with attached duties and a possibility of remuneration, even if payment depends on work performed and the engagement is terminable. Inclusion on a Railway panel of lawyers met this test because it required continuing duties to monitor litigation, notify the administration, seek adjournments when instructions were absent, and refrain from acting against any Railway; the engagement therefore disqualified the member. In contrast, a gazetted appointment as President of an Improvement Trust Tribunal did not establish that the office was held without evidence of acceptance, assumption of charge, or performance of functions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471195</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>