https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287520 Article 31B was treated as conferring full constitutional immunity on the Maharashtra Act and the earlier Hyderabad legislation placed in the Ninth Schedule, so a challenge under Articles 19 and 31 could not succeed. Section 38(E) inserted by amending legislation was also treated as protected because it formed part of the statutory scheme of the parent enactment already covered by the Ninth Schedule. The alternative objection based on want of legislative competence to enact retrospectively was not pursued further, and the reference to presidential assent did not affect the result. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the legislation was upheld. en-us Tue, 15 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Apr 2020 11:31:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287520 Article 31B was treated as conferring full constitutional immunity on the Maharashtra Act and the earlier Hyderabad legislation placed in the Ninth Schedule, so a challenge under Articles 19 and 31 could not succeed. Section 38(E) inserted by amending legislation was also treated as protected because it formed part of the statutory scheme of the parent enactment already covered by the Ninth Schedule. The alternative objection based on want of legislative competence to enact retrospectively was not pursued further, and the reference to presidential assent did not affect the result. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the legislation was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287520