https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173259 The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 and Rule 64, finding them not to impose unreasonable trade restrictions. However, Rule 53 was deemed ultra vires due to the absence of prescribed maximum fees, and Rules 65, 66, and 67 were also ultra vires for exceeding conferred powers. The Court ruled that the market was not properly established under Section 5AA, preventing enforcement of the Act's provisions. The respondents were directed not to enforce the Act, Rules, or bye-laws until proper establishment of the market and setting of maximum fees, with each party bearing its own costs. en-us Tue, 02 May 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:50:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173259 The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 and Rule 64, finding them not to impose unreasonable trade restrictions. However, Rule 53 was deemed ultra vires due to the absence of prescribed maximum fees, and Rules 65, 66, and 67 were also ultra vires for exceeding conferred powers. The Court ruled that the market was not properly established under Section 5AA, preventing enforcement of the Act's provisions. The respondents were directed not to enforce the Act, Rules, or bye-laws until proper establishment of the market and setting of maximum fees, with each party bearing its own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 May 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173259