<?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>1983 (3) TMI 296 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167124</link>
    <description>A High Court cannot, by an interim writ order, substitute its own judgment for the statutory authority&#039;s power to fix or revise a controlled retention price under the Paper (Control) Order; if the notified price is unsustainable, the proper course is final judicial review and reconsideration by the authority, not temporary judicial enhancement. Writ jurisdiction also cannot be invoked without a real part of the cause of action arising within the court&#039;s territorial limits. Where the petitioners&#039; mills and registered offices were outside the State, the control order was made elsewhere, and no material showed relevant sales or stock in the forum State, the petitions were not entertainable and the interim orders were vacated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2014 14:50:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (3) TMI 296 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167124</link>
      <description>A High Court cannot, by an interim writ order, substitute its own judgment for the statutory authority&#039;s power to fix or revise a controlled retention price under the Paper (Control) Order; if the notified price is unsustainable, the proper course is final judicial review and reconsideration by the authority, not temporary judicial enhancement. Writ jurisdiction also cannot be invoked without a real part of the cause of action arising within the court&#039;s territorial limits. Where the petitioners&#039; mills and registered offices were outside the State, the control order was made elsewhere, and no material showed relevant sales or stock in the forum State, the petitions were not entertainable and the interim orders were vacated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167124</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>