<?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 statutory clause that made a municipal corporation&#039;s opinion conclusive and non-justiciable was treated as an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g), because it excluded judicial review and left regulated trade to uncontrolled administrative discretion. Applying severability principles, the Court accepted that the offending words could be removed without disturbing the rest of the licensing provision, since the remaining text formed a complete and workable scheme. The article therefore states that the invalidity attached only to the clause making the opinion final, while the licensing framework in section 437(1)(b) otherwise remained operative.</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 statutory clause that made a municipal corporation&#039;s opinion conclusive and non-justiciable was treated as an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g), because it excluded judicial review and left regulated trade to uncontrolled administrative discretion. Applying severability principles, the Court accepted that the offending words could be removed without disturbing the rest of the licensing provision, since the remaining text formed a complete and workable scheme. The article therefore states that the invalidity attached only to the clause making the opinion final, while the licensing framework in section 437(1)(b) otherwise remained operative.</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>