<?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>2001 (12) TMI 808 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106564</link>
    <description>A bona fide economic disinvestment policy is ordinarily not justiciable on merits; judicial review is confined to checking illegality, constitutional infraction, mala fides or patent arbitrariness. The article states that no pre-decisional hearing or consultation is generally required for workmen before a broad policy decision affecting them as a class, especially where employment safeguards continue under contractual and labour protections. It further notes that land-related objections failed because a change in shareholding does not amount to a fresh transfer of land, and the applicable land law was held inapplicable on the stated facts. Public interest litigation was also treated as an unsuitable vehicle to challenge such policy, particularly where alternative remedies existed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 22:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143584" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 808 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106564</link>
      <description>A bona fide economic disinvestment policy is ordinarily not justiciable on merits; judicial review is confined to checking illegality, constitutional infraction, mala fides or patent arbitrariness. The article states that no pre-decisional hearing or consultation is generally required for workmen before a broad policy decision affecting them as a class, especially where employment safeguards continue under contractual and labour protections. It further notes that land-related objections failed because a change in shareholding does not amount to a fresh transfer of land, and the applicable land law was held inapplicable on the stated facts. Public interest litigation was also treated as an unsuitable vehicle to challenge such policy, particularly where alternative remedies existed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>