<?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>2004 (9) TMI 656 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181941</link>
    <description>Proceedings under Section 133 CrPC are summary and are meant to address public nuisance affecting the community at large, not private disputes. For action under clause (b), the Magistrate must have reliable evidence that the keeping, storage, loading or unloading of goods is injurious in presenti, or poses imminent danger to, the health or physical comfort of a substantial section of the public in the locality. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in sustaining action under Section 133 on the facts, and the appeal was dismissed. Any alternative arrangement or regulatory mode of storage or handling was left for the Magistrate to consider in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:06:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425901" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 656 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181941</link>
      <description>Proceedings under Section 133 CrPC are summary and are meant to address public nuisance affecting the community at large, not private disputes. For action under clause (b), the Magistrate must have reliable evidence that the keeping, storage, loading or unloading of goods is injurious in presenti, or poses imminent danger to, the health or physical comfort of a substantial section of the public in the locality. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in sustaining action under Section 133 on the facts, and the appeal was dismissed. Any alternative arrangement or regulatory mode of storage or handling was left for the Magistrate to consider in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>