<?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>1978 (9) TMI 200 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300335</link>
    <description>Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was construed narrowly to apply only to contracts entered into in the course of trade or business for supplying goods to the Government or executing works undertaken by it. The omission of the earlier reference to services showed a deliberate legislative restriction, so the provision could not be expanded by broad construction. A lease to sell arrack and toddy in retail under the excise regime was treated as a right to sell intoxicants to the public on payment of rent and charges, not as a contract to supply goods to, or execute works for, the Government; the first respondent was therefore not disqualified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 12:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=668206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (9) TMI 200 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300335</link>
      <description>Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was construed narrowly to apply only to contracts entered into in the course of trade or business for supplying goods to the Government or executing works undertaken by it. The omission of the earlier reference to services showed a deliberate legislative restriction, so the provision could not be expanded by broad construction. A lease to sell arrack and toddy in retail under the excise regime was treated as a right to sell intoxicants to the public on payment of rent and charges, not as a contract to supply goods to, or execute works for, the Government; the first respondent was therefore not disqualified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>