<?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>1958 (10) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307432</link>
    <description>The Court held that the Corporation&#039;s prohibition on selling meat in weekly markets without proper authorization was illegal and struck down the action. The increased fees for stalls in municipal meat markets were deemed reasonable, but the Court advised seeking redress through a suit due to the complexity of determining reasonableness. The Corporation&#039;s refusal to grant licenses for selling meat outside designated areas was upheld as reasonable to maintain hygienic conditions. Special Civil Application Nos. 198/58 and 286/58 succeeded, quashing the prohibition, while Special Civil Application No. 222 of 1958 was dismissed, and Special Civil Application No. 243 of 1958 was also dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:59:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (10) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307432</link>
      <description>The Court held that the Corporation&#039;s prohibition on selling meat in weekly markets without proper authorization was illegal and struck down the action. The increased fees for stalls in municipal meat markets were deemed reasonable, but the Court advised seeking redress through a suit due to the complexity of determining reasonableness. The Corporation&#039;s refusal to grant licenses for selling meat outside designated areas was upheld as reasonable to maintain hygienic conditions. Special Civil Application Nos. 198/58 and 286/58 succeeded, quashing the prohibition, while Special Civil Application No. 222 of 1958 was dismissed, and Special Civil Application No. 243 of 1958 was also dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>