https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196251 Scheme-making for religious institutions was treated as a judicial process because the Commissioner was drawn from the judicial service, the Assistant Commissioner conducted a preliminary inquiry, the prescribed procedure substantially followed the Code of Civil Procedure, and a direct appeal lay to the High Court. These safeguards meant that the process did not unreasonably restrict the Mathadipathi's property rights. The validating provision deeming earlier schemes to have been framed under the amended law was constitutionally permissible because it subjected them to the amended regime's safeguards, including a High Court appeal, rather than reviving the invalidated earlier law. The challenged provisions and validation were upheld, and the petitions failed. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Nov 2017 12:00:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196251 Scheme-making for religious institutions was treated as a judicial process because the Commissioner was drawn from the judicial service, the Assistant Commissioner conducted a preliminary inquiry, the prescribed procedure substantially followed the Code of Civil Procedure, and a direct appeal lay to the High Court. These safeguards meant that the process did not unreasonably restrict the Mathadipathi's property rights. The validating provision deeming earlier schemes to have been framed under the amended law was constitutionally permissible because it subjected them to the amended regime's safeguards, including a High Court appeal, rather than reviving the invalidated earlier law. The challenged provisions and validation were upheld, and the petitions failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Jan 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196251