<?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>2024 (6) TMI 39 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753432</link>
    <description>The search and seizure safeguards in Clause 7 of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005, read with Section 100 CrPC, apply in the context of prosecution for contravention of the Control Order. They do not govern termination of a dealership when the action is founded on breach of contractual terms rather than prosecution under the Control Order. The Supreme Court distinguished the authorities relied on by the dealer as dealing with different procedural defects and held that they did not control a termination based on breach of the dealership agreement. The contractual termination was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jun 2024 16:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 39 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753432</link>
      <description>The search and seizure safeguards in Clause 7 of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005, read with Section 100 CrPC, apply in the context of prosecution for contravention of the Control Order. They do not govern termination of a dealership when the action is founded on breach of contractual terms rather than prosecution under the Control Order. The Supreme Court distinguished the authorities relied on by the dealer as dealing with different procedural defects and held that they did not control a termination based on breach of the dealership agreement. The contractual termination was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>