<?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>1996 (5) TMI 437 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278508</link>
    <description>A total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks under the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959 was found to be an excessive restriction on trade under Article 19(1)(g). The Court held that earlier Constitution Bench authority already rejected such a prohibition for cattle that had ceased to be useful for breeding or draught purposes, and the material relied on to justify a wider ban did not show a sufficient change in circumstances. Article 48 was also held not to require protection of cattle no longer capable of yielding milk or performing useful work. The amendment was therefore struck down as unconstitutional to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2019 16:08:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=557041" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 437 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278508</link>
      <description>A total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks under the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959 was found to be an excessive restriction on trade under Article 19(1)(g). The Court held that earlier Constitution Bench authority already rejected such a prohibition for cattle that had ceased to be useful for breeding or draught purposes, and the material relied on to justify a wider ban did not show a sufficient change in circumstances. Article 48 was also held not to require protection of cattle no longer capable of yielding milk or performing useful work. The amendment was therefore struck down as unconstitutional to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>