TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Central Government could disinvest its holding in HPCL and BPCL so as to convert them into non-Government companies without repealing or suitably amending the acquisition statutes.
Analysis: The acquisition enactments were read in the context of their preambles, which stated that ownership and control of the petroleum undertakings were to vest in the State and be so distributed as best to subserve the common good. Section 7 of the relevant Act permitted vesting only in a Government company as defined under the Companies Act, 1956. The scheme of the enactment, together with the control mechanisms applicable to a Government company, showed that the statutory character of the undertakings could not be altered by executive action alone. The absence of an express clause in these enactments permitting transfer to a non-Government company did not assist the respondents, because the limitation was held to be implicit in the legislative scheme and object of the Acts.
Conclusion: Disinvestment that results in HPCL and BPCL ceasing to be Government companies could not be undertaken without appropriate amendment of the governing statutes and the issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a nationalisation statute vests an undertaking in the State or in a Government company to achieve a stated public purpose, the undertaking cannot be privatized so as to lose its statutory character by executive action alone; a change of that nature requires legislative amendment.
TaxTMI 
