<?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>1954 (7) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193665</link>
    <description>Section 169 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 is analysed as a municipal power to recover water charges through an alternative method within the State&#039;s competence. The provision is described as a valid classification mechanism because the Municipality may introduce measurement-based charging in stages and extend it to selected localities without offending Article 14. The text further explains that the Legislature did not abdicate its function, since the statutory policy and object were already fixed and municipal authorities were only implementing that policy. It also states that the Standing Committee&#039;s resolution and the Commissioner&#039;s action were valid, and that prior notice or hearing was not required before levy and recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (7) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193665</link>
      <description>Section 169 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 is analysed as a municipal power to recover water charges through an alternative method within the State&#039;s competence. The provision is described as a valid classification mechanism because the Municipality may introduce measurement-based charging in stages and extend it to selected localities without offending Article 14. The text further explains that the Legislature did not abdicate its function, since the statutory policy and object were already fixed and municipal authorities were only implementing that policy. It also states that the Standing Committee&#039;s resolution and the Commissioner&#039;s action were valid, and that prior notice or hearing was not required before levy and recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>