TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the impugned municipal bye-laws authorising licensing and regulation of a grain market were within the competence of the Municipal Board under the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 and consistent with section 241(1) of that Act.
Analysis: The market run on the appellant's land was found to be a market in the ordinary sense, as more than four shops sold grains there. Section 241(1) did not apply to a grain market, being confined to markets for animals, meat, fish, fruit, and vegetables intended for human food. In any event, section 298(2)(F)(d) empowered the Board to make bye-laws for the establishment, regulation, and inspection of markets, while section 298(2)(F)(dd) authorised licensing conditions and fees. The specific clauses in section 298(2) were treated as illustrative and not restrictive of the general power under section 298(1), which enabled bye-laws for the promotion of health, safety, convenience, and municipal administration. The incorrect recital of the source of power in the preamble did not invalidate otherwise competent bye-laws, and the additional objections based on mala fides, excessive fee, and fresh factual pleas were not entertained.
Conclusion: The bye-laws were held valid, the conviction was upheld, and the appellant's challenge failed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
