<?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>1988 (1) TMI 365 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309449</link>
    <description>Rule 41-A was upheld as a valid regulatory measure under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1964 because the Act&#039;s scheme and the wide rule-making power in Section 19 extended to incidental matters connected with licensed film exhibitions, including public safety, health, convenience and orderly conduct. The rule limiting the number of daily shows was treated as intra vires and consistent with the Act&#039;s purposes. It was also found to be a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6), since it regulated the manner of carrying on business without prohibiting exhibition of films and was justified by concerns such as overcrowding, ventilation, cleaning time and public safety.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2023 16:28:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=725057" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (1) TMI 365 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309449</link>
      <description>Rule 41-A was upheld as a valid regulatory measure under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1964 because the Act&#039;s scheme and the wide rule-making power in Section 19 extended to incidental matters connected with licensed film exhibitions, including public safety, health, convenience and orderly conduct. The rule limiting the number of daily shows was treated as intra vires and consistent with the Act&#039;s purposes. It was also found to be a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6), since it regulated the manner of carrying on business without prohibiting exhibition of films and was justified by concerns such as overcrowding, ventilation, cleaning time and public safety.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>