<?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>1977 (10) TMI 123 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289044</link>
    <description>An acquisition law for contract carriages, permits and connected assets was analysed as serving a public purpose because it aimed to curb misuse, improve passenger transport, and place the service under public control. The compensation scheme was upheld because, although inadequacy of amount was not open to challenge, the statute still provided a reasonable mechanism through agreement, arbitration, scheduled factors, liability deductions, and court review, so it was not arbitrary or illusory. On legislative competence, the law was treated in pith and substance as an acquisition measure, with only incidental overlap into inter-State trade; however, the countersigned portion of an inter-State permit was read down as beyond acquisition, while Karnataka-linked vehicles and permits remained validly covered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:44:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617123" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (10) TMI 123 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289044</link>
      <description>An acquisition law for contract carriages, permits and connected assets was analysed as serving a public purpose because it aimed to curb misuse, improve passenger transport, and place the service under public control. The compensation scheme was upheld because, although inadequacy of amount was not open to challenge, the statute still provided a reasonable mechanism through agreement, arbitration, scheduled factors, liability deductions, and court review, so it was not arbitrary or illusory. On legislative competence, the law was treated in pith and substance as an acquisition measure, with only incidental overlap into inter-State trade; however, the countersigned portion of an inter-State permit was read down as beyond acquisition, while Karnataka-linked vehicles and permits remained validly covered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>