<?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>1991 (2) TMI 415 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198943</link>
    <description>A Parliamentary declaration under Entry 52 of List I confers Union control only over the manufacturing or production aspect of a controlled industry and does not exclude State power over raw materials or the distribution and marketing of its products. The Central Silk Boards Act, 1948 was directed to development and control of the silk industry through the Silk Board, research and allied matters, not to the field covered by Entry 33 of List III. Because the impugned amendments regulated the supply, distribution and sale of silk yarn, they fell within the State Legislature&#039;s competence and were not repugnant to the Central law. The challenge to legislative competence therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:55:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (2) TMI 415 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198943</link>
      <description>A Parliamentary declaration under Entry 52 of List I confers Union control only over the manufacturing or production aspect of a controlled industry and does not exclude State power over raw materials or the distribution and marketing of its products. The Central Silk Boards Act, 1948 was directed to development and control of the silk industry through the Silk Board, research and allied matters, not to the field covered by Entry 33 of List III. Because the impugned amendments regulated the supply, distribution and sale of silk yarn, they fell within the State Legislature&#039;s competence and were not repugnant to the Central law. The challenge to legislative competence therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>