<?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>1966 (10) TMI 148 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173249</link>
    <description>The appellant, a non-tribal trader, challenged the refusal to renew his trading license by the Executive Committee. The High Court upheld the refusal, deeming it valid. However, the Supreme Court found Section 3 of the Regulation, which allowed for such refusal, to be an unreasonable restriction on the appellant&#039;s fundamental rights. Consequently, the refusal to renew the license was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2016 18:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (10) TMI 148 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173249</link>
      <description>The appellant, a non-tribal trader, challenged the refusal to renew his trading license by the Executive Committee. The High Court upheld the refusal, deeming it valid. However, the Supreme Court found Section 3 of the Regulation, which allowed for such refusal, to be an unreasonable restriction on the appellant&#039;s fundamental rights. Consequently, the refusal to renew the license was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>