<?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>1966 (9) TMI 163 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289846</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petition under Article 226, stating that the government-owned corporation is not considered &#039;State&#039; under Article 12, thus not subject to writ jurisdiction for alleged violations of Article 14. The court found no statutory obligation on the corporation to distribute chanks equitably. Acknowledging potential hardships, the court suggested seeking relief through administrative channels. The petition was dismissed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2020 12:08:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=620585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (9) TMI 163 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289846</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petition under Article 226, stating that the government-owned corporation is not considered &#039;State&#039; under Article 12, thus not subject to writ jurisdiction for alleged violations of Article 14. The court found no statutory obligation on the corporation to distribute chanks equitably. Acknowledging potential hardships, the court suggested seeking relief through administrative channels. The petition was dismissed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>