<?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>1952 (12) TMI 46 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283497</link>
    <description>Words conferring power to regulate trade and commerce in essential commodities were construed broadly to include export restrictions when such restrictions were ancillary to maintaining supply and equitable distribution. On that construction, the East Punjab Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Regulation of Movement) Order, 1947, was treated as within delegated authority. The text also notes that convictions based materially on a supposed admission not found in the record could not safely stand, because guilt should not be decided on a mistaken premise; the proper course was a rehearing on the evidence actually available. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:57:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588656" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (12) TMI 46 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283497</link>
      <description>Words conferring power to regulate trade and commerce in essential commodities were construed broadly to include export restrictions when such restrictions were ancillary to maintaining supply and equitable distribution. On that construction, the East Punjab Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Regulation of Movement) Order, 1947, was treated as within delegated authority. The text also notes that convictions based materially on a supposed admission not found in the record could not safely stand, because guilt should not be decided on a mistaken premise; the proper course was a rehearing on the evidence actually available. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>