<?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>1951 (7) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293340</link>
    <description>Full and frank disclosure is required in ex parte mandamus proceedings, and suppression of a prior prosecution and conviction is treated as material and disentitles the applicant to relief. A mandamus petition must also be properly verified by the petitioner or on a legally sufficient basis; verification by a tadbirkar was considered inadequate. The West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949, including the renewal discretion in paragraph 11, was described as a reasonable regulatory licensing scheme in the public interest and not invalid merely because it conferred wide discretion. Relief also depended on a clear prior demand and refusal, which the record did not show.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2021 12:39:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=635569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (7) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293340</link>
      <description>Full and frank disclosure is required in ex parte mandamus proceedings, and suppression of a prior prosecution and conviction is treated as material and disentitles the applicant to relief. A mandamus petition must also be properly verified by the petitioner or on a legally sufficient basis; verification by a tadbirkar was considered inadequate. The West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949, including the renewal discretion in paragraph 11, was described as a reasonable regulatory licensing scheme in the public interest and not invalid merely because it conferred wide discretion. Relief also depended on a clear prior demand and refusal, which the record did not show.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>