<?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>2012 (10) TMI 1262 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304209</link>
    <description>A context-sensitive, inclusive reading of the term &quot;company&quot; under the sick industrial undertaking regime supports coverage of a foreign company carrying on industrial activity in India and registered for business purposes, because the statute&#039;s protective object extends to workers and creditors of the Indian undertaking. On that construction, BIFR jurisdiction was available. The article also notes that writ challengers without an enforceable basis, or who earlier invoked and benefited from the same process before taking a contrary stand, lacked maintainable locus and their challenge was treated as an abuse of process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2022 19:36:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=690596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 1262 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304209</link>
      <description>A context-sensitive, inclusive reading of the term &quot;company&quot; under the sick industrial undertaking regime supports coverage of a foreign company carrying on industrial activity in India and registered for business purposes, because the statute&#039;s protective object extends to workers and creditors of the Indian undertaking. On that construction, BIFR jurisdiction was available. The article also notes that writ challengers without an enforceable basis, or who earlier invoked and benefited from the same process before taking a contrary stand, lacked maintainable locus and their challenge was treated as an abuse of process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>