<?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>1960 (8) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97739</link>
    <description>An incorporated company in India may, if it satisfies the constitutional test of citizenship under Article 5, be treated as a citizen and invoke Article 19(1)(g); the Court held that a company could fall within the constitutional concept of citizenship and rejected the preliminary objection. The Court also held that clause 8 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, insofar as it enabled revocation or suspension of accepted despatches and planning orders without guiding directions under clause 17, was unguided and arbitrary. That unrestricted power imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business and was therefore void as exercised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:09:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (8) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97739</link>
      <description>An incorporated company in India may, if it satisfies the constitutional test of citizenship under Article 5, be treated as a citizen and invoke Article 19(1)(g); the Court held that a company could fall within the constitutional concept of citizenship and rejected the preliminary objection. The Court also held that clause 8 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, insofar as it enabled revocation or suspension of accepted despatches and planning orders without guiding directions under clause 17, was unguided and arbitrary. That unrestricted power imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business and was therefore void as exercised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>