<?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>1959 (4) TMI 25 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169702</link>
    <description>The Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 was upheld as a valid scheme for secular regulation of religious trusts. Its classification between Hindu, Sikh and Jain trusts was sustained under Article 14 because it rested on intelligible differences connected to the Act&#039;s object of better administration. The controls over trustees and trust property were treated as reasonable regulatory measures under Article 19(1)(f), and the Court found no interference with religious practice or denominational autonomy under Articles 25 and 26. The statutory contribution under section 70 was held to be a fee for regulatory administration, not a tax, and section 55(2) was not inconsistent with constitutional appellate jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 May 2015 11:51:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383550" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (4) TMI 25 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169702</link>
      <description>The Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 was upheld as a valid scheme for secular regulation of religious trusts. Its classification between Hindu, Sikh and Jain trusts was sustained under Article 14 because it rested on intelligible differences connected to the Act&#039;s object of better administration. The controls over trustees and trust property were treated as reasonable regulatory measures under Article 19(1)(f), and the Court found no interference with religious practice or denominational autonomy under Articles 25 and 26. The statutory contribution under section 70 was held to be a fee for regulatory administration, not a tax, and section 55(2) was not inconsistent with constitutional appellate jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>