https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181105 The court held that the agreement between the parties was binding, Rule 23 did not contravene Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution, and sub-Rule (6) of Rule 23 was valid under the rule-making power conferred by Section 30 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Justice Raghubar Dayal dissented, arguing that Rule 23 was discriminatory and that sub-Rule (6) was beyond the State Government's power, advocating for the striking down of the entire Rule 23. en-us Thu, 06 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Apr 2016 14:25:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181105 The court held that the agreement between the parties was binding, Rule 23 did not contravene Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution, and sub-Rule (6) of Rule 23 was valid under the rule-making power conferred by Section 30 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Justice Raghubar Dayal dissented, arguing that Rule 23 was discriminatory and that sub-Rule (6) was beyond the State Government's power, advocating for the striking down of the entire Rule 23. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181105