<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1320 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194197</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the validity of the &quot;Two-Terminal-per-Operator Cap&quot; policy over contractual clauses, ruling in favor of the government&#039;s decision to prevent private monopoly in the port sector. The court found the policy change to be lawful and not subject to judicial review, dismissing the Writ Petition challenging the policy&#039;s applicability. The court emphasized the primacy of public interest in policy decisions and the limitations on judicial interference in economic policy matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:38:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1320 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194197</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the validity of the &quot;Two-Terminal-per-Operator Cap&quot; policy over contractual clauses, ruling in favor of the government&#039;s decision to prevent private monopoly in the port sector. The court found the policy change to be lawful and not subject to judicial review, dismissing the Writ Petition challenging the policy&#039;s applicability. The court emphasized the primacy of public interest in policy decisions and the limitations on judicial interference in economic policy matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>