<?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>2018 (7) TMI 2347 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314279</link>
    <description>Kerala HC dismissed writ petition challenging exclusion from women&#039;s badminton team for 2018 Asian Games. Court found selection procedure fair and transparent, with players informed of point-awarding basis and required tournaments. Despite challenge regarding Chief National Coach&#039;s daughter being selected, HC ruled no bias or patent illegality was demonstrated. Court deferred to selection committee&#039;s expertise in choosing between singles players versus doubles pair for final slots. Additionally, HC determined Karnataka HC had territorial jurisdiction since selection committee deliberations occurred in Bangalore, rejecting petitioners&#039; argument that routing applications through Kerala authorities established jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 May 2024 21:16:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 2347 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314279</link>
      <description>Kerala HC dismissed writ petition challenging exclusion from women&#039;s badminton team for 2018 Asian Games. Court found selection procedure fair and transparent, with players informed of point-awarding basis and required tournaments. Despite challenge regarding Chief National Coach&#039;s daughter being selected, HC ruled no bias or patent illegality was demonstrated. Court deferred to selection committee&#039;s expertise in choosing between singles players versus doubles pair for final slots. Additionally, HC determined Karnataka HC had territorial jurisdiction since selection committee deliberations occurred in Bangalore, rejecting petitioners&#039; argument that routing applications through Kerala authorities established jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>