<?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>1981 (1) TMI 274 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171095</link>
    <description>Minimum royalty in a State monopoly tender is protected by Article 19(6)(ii) only when integral to creating the monopoly; otherwise it must meet the reasonable-restriction test under Article 19(6). A minimum royalty linked to open tendering, known estimated yield and protection of public revenue was treated as reasonable and non-discriminatory under Article 14, particularly where all bidders faced identical terms. Conversely, an absolute contractual bar on objections to the quality or shortage of kendu leaves conflicted with the statutory warranty requiring leaves fit for bidi manufacture. That bar could not override the parent Act and was invalid, while the minimum royalty scheme remained valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:42:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389821" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (1) TMI 274 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171095</link>
      <description>Minimum royalty in a State monopoly tender is protected by Article 19(6)(ii) only when integral to creating the monopoly; otherwise it must meet the reasonable-restriction test under Article 19(6). A minimum royalty linked to open tendering, known estimated yield and protection of public revenue was treated as reasonable and non-discriminatory under Article 14, particularly where all bidders faced identical terms. Conversely, an absolute contractual bar on objections to the quality or shortage of kendu leaves conflicted with the statutory warranty requiring leaves fit for bidi manufacture. That bar could not override the parent Act and was invalid, while the minimum royalty scheme remained valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>