<?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>2017 (11) TMI 1692 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274627</link>
    <description>Judicial review in tender matters is limited to cases of mala fides, bias, arbitrariness or irrationality, and the challenge to the TASMAC bar tender conditions failed on that standard. The Court accepted fixation of the upset price and monthly licence fee by reference to the retail shop&#039;s sales turnover as having a rational commercial basis, since the bar was only an adjunct facility for liquor purchasers. It also held that the percentage-based formula was not static because it adjusted with monthly sales, and that the differential treatment for Nilgiris District was supported by prevailing conditions. No mala fides, bias or Article 14 violation was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2018 09:26:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=531916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1692 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274627</link>
      <description>Judicial review in tender matters is limited to cases of mala fides, bias, arbitrariness or irrationality, and the challenge to the TASMAC bar tender conditions failed on that standard. The Court accepted fixation of the upset price and monthly licence fee by reference to the retail shop&#039;s sales turnover as having a rational commercial basis, since the bar was only an adjunct facility for liquor purchasers. It also held that the percentage-based formula was not static because it adjusted with monthly sales, and that the differential treatment for Nilgiris District was supported by prevailing conditions. No mala fides, bias or Article 14 violation was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>