<?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>1958 (12) TMI 32 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169288</link>
    <description>The Ajmer (Sound Amplifiers Control) Act, 1952 was explained as valid under the doctrine of pith and substance because its true subject-matter was regulation of the use of sound amplifiers in the interests of public health, tranquillity, and nuisance prevention. Although sound amplifiers could relate incidentally to broadcasting or communication, the legislation did not control ownership, possession, or manufacture as such. The State&#039;s power over public health and public order was held wide enough to support reasonable regulation of use, and any incidental encroachment on the Union List did not invalidate the Act in the absence of repugnancy or an occupied field.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:36:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381500" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (12) TMI 32 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169288</link>
      <description>The Ajmer (Sound Amplifiers Control) Act, 1952 was explained as valid under the doctrine of pith and substance because its true subject-matter was regulation of the use of sound amplifiers in the interests of public health, tranquillity, and nuisance prevention. Although sound amplifiers could relate incidentally to broadcasting or communication, the legislation did not control ownership, possession, or manufacture as such. The State&#039;s power over public health and public order was held wide enough to support reasonable regulation of use, and any incidental encroachment on the Union List did not invalidate the Act in the absence of repugnancy or an occupied field.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>