<?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>1969 (7) TMI 113 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192659</link>
    <description>Timely payment for sugarcane under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955 falls within the power to regulate essential commodities and food-crops, including their purchase price. The prescribed payment period validly operated despite inconsistent provisions of the pre-Constitution Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937, because Article 372 preserved that law only until competent alteration, repeal or amendment. Non-payment was treated as a cognizable offence because the applicable punishment brought it within the Code of Criminal Procedure classification, permitting police investigation; the restriction concerning court cognizance was inapplicable before cognizance was taken.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:44:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471521" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (7) TMI 113 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192659</link>
      <description>Timely payment for sugarcane under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955 falls within the power to regulate essential commodities and food-crops, including their purchase price. The prescribed payment period validly operated despite inconsistent provisions of the pre-Constitution Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937, because Article 372 preserved that law only until competent alteration, repeal or amendment. Non-payment was treated as a cognizable offence because the applicable punishment brought it within the Code of Criminal Procedure classification, permitting police investigation; the restriction concerning court cognizance was inapplicable before cognizance was taken.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>