<?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>2007 (9) TMI 608 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170999</link>
    <description>Licensing and reservation of cane areas under the Essential Commodities Act framework were treated as measures regulated in public interest, and the licensing authority could refuse a khandsari licence only on the limited grounds in the governing orders. The relaxed policy was later applied with recorded satisfaction that the proposed unit would not adversely affect cane availability to the existing sugar mill, and protective conditions were imposed on bonded cane purchases, statutory minimum price, and crushing capacity. The challenge based on mala fides failed for lack of material particulars, and a mere policy change did not invalidate the decision when uniformly applied and supported by relevant considerations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 608 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170999</link>
      <description>Licensing and reservation of cane areas under the Essential Commodities Act framework were treated as measures regulated in public interest, and the licensing authority could refuse a khandsari licence only on the limited grounds in the governing orders. The relaxed policy was later applied with recorded satisfaction that the proposed unit would not adversely affect cane availability to the existing sugar mill, and protective conditions were imposed on bonded cane purchases, statutory minimum price, and crushing capacity. The challenge based on mala fides failed for lack of material particulars, and a mere policy change did not invalidate the decision when uniformly applied and supported by relevant considerations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>