Discuss one or two situations in which you relied on anecdotal evidence to jump to a conclusion or overgeneralize about an issue. How could you have learned more reliable information about the topic instead of relying on anecdotal evidence.
Sample Solution
the fundamental rights that are available to a citizen of India as defined under the Constitution of India and Citizenship Act, since once a company is formed it is merely regarded as an incorporated body. Another path was observed by the Bombay High Court in the Pilai Central Bank petition where the court was of the opinion that rebuttal of fundamental rights to a company or corporation composed of citizens would in all but name point out towards rebuttal of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India to the actual citizens indirectly. Now, Article 14 of the Constitution of India says that âstate shall not deny to any person equality before law and equal protection of laws within the territory of India.â Focus on the words âany personâ clearly implies that equal protection is in the reach of any person inclusive of a company or corporation. It is not just bound to citizens and extends to all persons though they may be applied in a distinguished manner. In âChiranjilal Chaudhary V. Union of Indiaâ the petitioner approached the Supreme Court claiming his rights under Article 14 and 31. A mill was being run in the same name but had to be closed down soon due to the mismanagement of the company. This run down resulted in serious unemployment. Now this was further replaced by an Act which said that a new director could not be appointed, and no proceedings could be initiated towards closing the company. Here, the petitioner contended that this Act violated his rights under Article 14 of the Constitution and shall be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the rules set in the Act are valid and do not go against any legislation. A law may be applicable to one section and not to another under certain circumstances but that does not amount to being invalid. Emphasis was laid on the fact that a corporation may be entitled to fundamental rights in reach of any natural person like right to freedom of speech, right to equality etc. In another case âTata Engineering v. State of Biharâ Tata Engineering was a private company having maximum number of shareholders as citizens of India. Out of these citizens two of them filed a petition in the court saying that the corporate veil shall be broken to which the court held that the companyâs legal entity is totally separate from the entity of the shareholders. This basically implied that the shareholders are not entitled to claim fundamental rights in the name of the company.>
GET ANSWER
the fundamental rights that are available to a citizen of India as defined under the Constitution of India and Citizenship Act, since once a company is formed it is merely regarded as an incorporated body. Another path was observed by the Bombay High Court in the Pilai Central Bank petition where the court was of the opinion that rebuttal of fundamental rights to a company or corporation composed of citizens would in all but name point out towards rebuttal of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India to the actual citizens indirectly. Now, Article 14 of the Constitution of India says that âstate shall not deny to any person equality before law and equal protection of laws within the territory of India.â Focus on the words âany personâ clearly implies that equal protection is in the reach of any person inclusive of a company or corporation. It is not just bound to citizens and extends to all persons though they may be applied in a distinguished manner. In âChiranjilal Chaudhary V. Union of Indiaâ the petitioner approached the Supreme Court claiming his rights under Article 14 and 31. A mill was being run in the same name but had to be closed down soon due to the mismanagement of the company. This run down resulted in serious unemployment. Now this was further replaced by an Act which said that a new director could not be appointed, and no proceedings could be initiated towards closing the company. Here, the petitioner contended that this Act violated his rights under Article 14 of the Constitution and shall be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the rules set in the Act are valid and do not go against any legislation. A law may be applicable to one section and not to another under certain circumstances but that does not amount to being invalid. Emphasis was laid on the fact that a corporation may be entitled to fundamental rights in reach of any natural person like right to freedom of speech, right to equality etc. In another case âTata Engineering v. State of Biharâ Tata Engineering was a private company having maximum number of shareholders as citizens of India. Out of these citizens two of them filed a petition in the court saying that the corporate veil shall be broken to which the court held that the companyâs legal entity is totally separate from the entity of the shareholders. This basically implied that the shareholders are not entitled to claim fundamental rights in the name of the company.>
Is this question part of your Assignment?
We can help
Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.
We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals
Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples