<?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>1965 (8) TMI 95 - PUNJAB-HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197631</link>
    <description>Municipal bye-laws that confined wholesale or auction sale of fruits and vegetables to four specified shops were held to go beyond the power to prohibit sales in unlicensed premises, because that power allowed licensing of suitable premises but not fixing exclusive places of trade. They also could not be justified as market regulation, since &quot;regulation&quot; under the relevant provision did not extend to a complete prohibition or to restricting an ordinary business to a few designated shops. The restriction created an exclusive commercial privilege and an unreasonable restraint on the right to carry on business, so the bye-laws were invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 10:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (8) TMI 95 - PUNJAB-HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197631</link>
      <description>Municipal bye-laws that confined wholesale or auction sale of fruits and vegetables to four specified shops were held to go beyond the power to prohibit sales in unlicensed premises, because that power allowed licensing of suitable premises but not fixing exclusive places of trade. They also could not be justified as market regulation, since &quot;regulation&quot; under the relevant provision did not extend to a complete prohibition or to restricting an ordinary business to a few designated shops. The restriction created an exclusive commercial privilege and an unreasonable restraint on the right to carry on business, so the bye-laws were invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>