https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398189 The court dismissed the petition due to the lack of explicit evidence supporting the need for expedited hearings, the non-maintainability of the petition under Article 226 against respondent no.2, and the absence of substantial grounds for granting subsidiary relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual substantiation in legal proceedings and the limitations of court jurisdiction in matters involving private entities lacking public attributes. en-us Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Sep 2020 16:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398189 The court dismissed the petition due to the lack of explicit evidence supporting the need for expedited hearings, the non-maintainability of the petition under Article 226 against respondent no.2, and the absence of substantial grounds for granting subsidiary relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual substantiation in legal proceedings and the limitations of court jurisdiction in matters involving private entities lacking public attributes. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398189