<?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 (9) TMI 998 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175959</link>
    <description>Retrospective amendment excluding dairy and milk co-operative societies from the Mutually Aided Co-operative regime and deeming them registered under the older law was held to lack rational nexus with the stated objective and to impermissibly impair associational autonomy. The Court treated the compulsory reclassification as arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(c). It also held that while retrospective legislation is not per se invalid, it cannot unreasonably take away accrued rights or survive when manifestly arbitrary. Promissory estoppel could not save an otherwise unconstitutional measure, and the transitional persons-in-charge arrangement could not validate the reclassification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408253" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 998 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175959</link>
      <description>Retrospective amendment excluding dairy and milk co-operative societies from the Mutually Aided Co-operative regime and deeming them registered under the older law was held to lack rational nexus with the stated objective and to impermissibly impair associational autonomy. The Court treated the compulsory reclassification as arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(c). It also held that while retrospective legislation is not per se invalid, it cannot unreasonably take away accrued rights or survive when manifestly arbitrary. Promissory estoppel could not save an otherwise unconstitutional measure, and the transitional persons-in-charge arrangement could not validate the reclassification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>