https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111185 The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the respondent-company is a "State" under Article 12. The termination of the petitioner's services was deemed valid as per contractual terms. The petitioner's plea for compensation under Section 318(4) of the Companies Act was denied. Allegations of mala fide intentions and procedural irregularities were found baseless. The court held the writ petition inadmissible, emphasizing it sought to enforce a personal service contract. en-us Tue, 17 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:40:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111185 The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the respondent-company is a "State" under Article 12. The termination of the petitioner's services was deemed valid as per contractual terms. The petitioner's plea for compensation under Section 318(4) of the Companies Act was denied. Allegations of mala fide intentions and procedural irregularities were found baseless. The court held the writ petition inadmissible, emphasizing it sought to enforce a personal service contract. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 17 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111185