Corporate insolvency resolution process amended with expanded disclosure, guarantor asset transfer rules, and new dissolution and restoration procedur...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2541 to 2560 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involved a dispute over the writ jurisdiction of the High Court post privatization of (AIL) by a private corporate entity. - Erstwhile Public sector undertaking (PSU) - The issue was whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction over a private entity. The employee-writ petitioner argued that the petition was maintainable against the respondent at the time of filing. Various High Courts had held that a government company becoming a private entity would make it immune from writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not issue a writ to a private entity that had taken over during the pendency of the case. The delay in disposal of the writ petitions was considered a valid ground to continue the case, but the appellants were directed to seek remedy from another forum. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Bombay High Court to deny equitable relief and require the appellants to approach the appropriate forum for their grievances.
The case involved a dispute over the writ jurisdiction of the High Court post privatization of (AIL) by a private corporate entity. - Erstwhile Public sector undertaking (PSU) - The issue was whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction over a private entity. The employee-writ petitioner argued that the petition was maintainable against the respondent at the time of filing. Various High Courts had held that a government company becoming a private entity would make it immune from writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not issue a writ to a private entity that had taken over during the pendency of the case. The delay in disposal of the writ petitions was considered a valid ground to continue the case, but the appellants were directed to seek remedy from another forum. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Bombay High Court to deny equitable relief and require the appellants to approach the appropriate forum for their grievances.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
