<?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>1987 (9) TMI 422 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192495</link>
    <description>Retrospective validating legislation can cure a defect in an earlier statutory scheme if it removes the legal basis of the prior invalidity, but it cannot merely nullify a judicial decision by declaration alone. Here, the ordinance retrospectively expanded the definition of forest produce, replaced the rescission provision, and expressly validated the earlier notification despite any contrary judgment; on that basis, it was treated as competent validation rather than an impermissible legislative overruling. The Court also noted that the challenge could not succeed by relying on objects and reasons or executive policy, and that the restrictions imposed in support of a State monopoly were not shown to be unreasonable. The validating ordinance and the notification were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Jun 2017 10:45:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470866" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (9) TMI 422 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192495</link>
      <description>Retrospective validating legislation can cure a defect in an earlier statutory scheme if it removes the legal basis of the prior invalidity, but it cannot merely nullify a judicial decision by declaration alone. Here, the ordinance retrospectively expanded the definition of forest produce, replaced the rescission provision, and expressly validated the earlier notification despite any contrary judgment; on that basis, it was treated as competent validation rather than an impermissible legislative overruling. The Court also noted that the challenge could not succeed by relying on objects and reasons or executive policy, and that the restrictions imposed in support of a State monopoly were not shown to be unreasonable. The validating ordinance and the notification were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>