<?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>1955 (12) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197826</link>
    <description>Bombay prohibition law could validly regulate medicinal preparations containing alcohol where the scheme was aimed at preventing diversion to beverage and other noxious use. The phrase &quot;fit for use as intoxicating liquor&quot; was construed as capable of use as a beverage, not merely capable of causing drunkenness, and that construction sustained the administrative determination regarding Hall&#039;s Wine. The medical prescription requirement, licensing controls, and related safeguards were treated as reasonable restrictions supporting the object of prohibition and were not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory. On that basis, the amended regulatory scheme was upheld in its application to Hall&#039;s Wine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:59:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504750" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (12) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197826</link>
      <description>Bombay prohibition law could validly regulate medicinal preparations containing alcohol where the scheme was aimed at preventing diversion to beverage and other noxious use. The phrase &quot;fit for use as intoxicating liquor&quot; was construed as capable of use as a beverage, not merely capable of causing drunkenness, and that construction sustained the administrative determination regarding Hall&#039;s Wine. The medical prescription requirement, licensing controls, and related safeguards were treated as reasonable restrictions supporting the object of prohibition and were not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory. On that basis, the amended regulatory scheme was upheld in its application to Hall&#039;s Wine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>