<?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>1994 (7) TMI 228 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102505</link>
    <description>A company does not become &quot;State&quot; or &quot;other authority&quot; under articles 12 and 226 merely because a government-controlled body holds a majority shareholding or has nominees on the board. The decisive factors are the company&#039;s constitution, real management control, the extent of governmental dominance, and whether its functions are public or governmental in character. Where management remains with the board of directors, there is no pervasive governmental control, and the business is commercial rather than public in nature, the company remains outside articles 12 and 226. On that basis, a writ petition challenging termination of service against such a company is not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:33:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139551" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (7) TMI 228 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102505</link>
      <description>A company does not become &quot;State&quot; or &quot;other authority&quot; under articles 12 and 226 merely because a government-controlled body holds a majority shareholding or has nominees on the board. The decisive factors are the company&#039;s constitution, real management control, the extent of governmental dominance, and whether its functions are public or governmental in character. Where management remains with the board of directors, there is no pervasive governmental control, and the business is commercial rather than public in nature, the company remains outside articles 12 and 226. On that basis, a writ petition challenging termination of service against such a company is not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>