<?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>1939 (2) TMI 15 - Madras High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290555</link>
    <description>The Madras Agriculturists&#039; Relief Act, 1938 was assessed under the pith and substance test and treated as legislation for relief of indebted agriculturists and regulation of money-lending, both within provincial competence. Its reduction of liability under promissory notes and other negotiable instruments was only incidental, so it did not become legislation on negotiable instruments; in any event, reserved assent would secure precedence in the Province against inconsistent earlier law. The Act also did not offend Hindu law, because it regulated contractual liability and did not directly alter Hindu obligations of sons or joint Hindu family members. The Act was upheld as intra vires.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 1939 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2020 14:35:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=624118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1939 (2) TMI 15 - Madras High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290555</link>
      <description>The Madras Agriculturists&#039; Relief Act, 1938 was assessed under the pith and substance test and treated as legislation for relief of indebted agriculturists and regulation of money-lending, both within provincial competence. Its reduction of liability under promissory notes and other negotiable instruments was only incidental, so it did not become legislation on negotiable instruments; in any event, reserved assent would secure precedence in the Province against inconsistent earlier law. The Act also did not offend Hindu law, because it regulated contractual liability and did not directly alter Hindu obligations of sons or joint Hindu family members. The Act was upheld as intra vires.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 1939 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>