<?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>2011 (8) TMI 1122 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175641</link>
    <description>Rule 128(9) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 permits luggage storage in tourist vehicles only at the rear or sides, and by necessary implication excludes roof-top carriage. Rule 128(1) does not import provisions from other vehicle classes to justify roof loading, because the language of Rule 128(9) is plain and unambiguous. The restriction was upheld as safety-based and not arbitrary, so it was not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407052" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1122 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175641</link>
      <description>Rule 128(9) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 permits luggage storage in tourist vehicles only at the rear or sides, and by necessary implication excludes roof-top carriage. Rule 128(1) does not import provisions from other vehicle classes to justify roof loading, because the language of Rule 128(9) is plain and unambiguous. The restriction was upheld as safety-based and not arbitrary, so it was not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>