<?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>1963 (10) TMI 28 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169688</link>
    <description>A municipal licensing provision making the Corporation&#039;s opinion conclusive and immune from judicial challenge imposed an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g), because it exposed regulated activity to uncontrolled administrative discretion. That exclusionary clause was unconstitutional. Applying severability principles, the remaining licensing requirement was capable of operating as a complete and workable scheme without the invalid words. The parenthetical clause excluding judicial scrutiny was therefore severed, while the rest of the licensing provision remained valid, and the matter required reconsideration on surviving issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:58:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (10) TMI 28 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169688</link>
      <description>A municipal licensing provision making the Corporation&#039;s opinion conclusive and immune from judicial challenge imposed an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g), because it exposed regulated activity to uncontrolled administrative discretion. That exclusionary clause was unconstitutional. Applying severability principles, the remaining licensing requirement was capable of operating as a complete and workable scheme without the invalid words. The parenthetical clause excluding judicial scrutiny was therefore severed, while the rest of the licensing provision remained valid, and the matter required reconsideration on surviving issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>