<?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>1953 (2) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291853</link>
    <description>The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 was treated as a valid law on estate abolition and ryotwari settlement, with its incidental effect on chank fisheries and territorial waters not defeating legislative competence. Its connection with inter-State trade and commerce was also rejected because the enactment was in substance a State law on estate abolition, not on commerce. On lease termination, a post-1 July 1945 long-term lease fell within the second proviso to Section 20, so the Government could terminate it without the three months&#039; notice required under the third proviso. The notice was therefore within power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2020 15:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628710" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (2) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291853</link>
      <description>The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 was treated as a valid law on estate abolition and ryotwari settlement, with its incidental effect on chank fisheries and territorial waters not defeating legislative competence. Its connection with inter-State trade and commerce was also rejected because the enactment was in substance a State law on estate abolition, not on commerce. On lease termination, a post-1 July 1945 long-term lease fell within the second proviso to Section 20, so the Government could terminate it without the three months&#039; notice required under the third proviso. The notice was therefore within power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>