<?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>2008 (1) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200584</link>
    <description>Section 30B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 authorises the State Government to issue directions to a co-operative society in public interest and for proper implementation of development programmes. Applied here, that power was held sufficient to direct leasing of a co-operative sugar factory even without a general body resolution, because the factory had suffered heavy losses, remained closed and the lease was framed as a revival measure. Judicial review under Article 226 was confined to mala fides, arbitrariness and unreasonableness; none was found. The lease order and notification were therefore upheld as valid public-interest measures.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2018 10:08:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200584</link>
      <description>Section 30B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 authorises the State Government to issue directions to a co-operative society in public interest and for proper implementation of development programmes. Applied here, that power was held sufficient to direct leasing of a co-operative sugar factory even without a general body resolution, because the factory had suffered heavy losses, remained closed and the lease was framed as a revival measure. Judicial review under Article 226 was confined to mala fides, arbitrariness and unreasonableness; none was found. The lease order and notification were therefore upheld as valid public-interest measures.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>