<?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>1971 (7) TMI 166 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298033</link>
    <description>The Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958 was treated as a public-interest licensing scheme regulating the exercise of the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g), with the licensing authority considering public interest, site suitability, adequacy of theatres, and objections. Those provisions did not confer on an existing exhibitor a private right to stop a rival from obtaining a licence, so a civil injunction was not maintainable. The plaintiff also failed to show proper standing, as he was only a manager and did not establish authority to sue for the concern. A grievance based only on lawful competition was held not to amount to a cognizable civil injury.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2021 10:29:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (7) TMI 166 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298033</link>
      <description>The Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958 was treated as a public-interest licensing scheme regulating the exercise of the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g), with the licensing authority considering public interest, site suitability, adequacy of theatres, and objections. Those provisions did not confer on an existing exhibitor a private right to stop a rival from obtaining a licence, so a civil injunction was not maintainable. The plaintiff also failed to show proper standing, as he was only a manager and did not establish authority to sue for the concern. A grievance based only on lawful competition was held not to amount to a cognizable civil injury.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>