<?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 (3) TMI 1018 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169780</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of the amendments and schemes. It deemed the retrospective effect of the 1985 Amendment Act necessary to address prior judicial decisions. The exclusion of the Industrial Disputes Act was considered justifiable in the broader interest of the insurance sector, without impinging on the right to collective bargaining. The court found no infringement of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 May 2015 13:19:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 1018 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169780</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of the amendments and schemes. It deemed the retrospective effect of the 1985 Amendment Act necessary to address prior judicial decisions. The exclusion of the Industrial Disputes Act was considered justifiable in the broader interest of the insurance sector, without impinging on the right to collective bargaining. The court found no infringement of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>