https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200851 A Central statute governing architects was treated as an exhaustive code for registration, practice and discipline, so inconsistent municipal licensing requirements could not continue against registered architects. The Court therefore held that architects registered under the Architects Act were not required to obtain a separate municipal licence. At the same time, the Act was read as protecting the title of architect rather than creating a monopoly over all design, supervision or construction work. Qualified engineers and surveyors could perform such work if they did not hold themselves out as architects, and the challenge seeking to exclude them failed. en-us Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:04:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200851 A Central statute governing architects was treated as an exhaustive code for registration, practice and discipline, so inconsistent municipal licensing requirements could not continue against registered architects. The Court therefore held that architects registered under the Architects Act were not required to obtain a separate municipal licence. At the same time, the Act was read as protecting the title of architect rather than creating a monopoly over all design, supervision or construction work. Qualified engineers and surveyors could perform such work if they did not hold themselves out as architects, and the challenge seeking to exclude them failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200851