<?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>1987 (11) TMI 217 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73474</link>
    <description>A technical evaluation under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act found that specialised grades of silica proposed for manufacture were distinct from reserved precipitated silica for the Small Scale Sector because they required spray-drying, higher capital investment, and different end uses. On that basis, the products were treated as outside the small-scale reservation, so the objection to approval of the industrial licence and foreign collaboration failed. The document also states that a trade rival is not ordinarily entitled to inspect another applicant&#039;s papers, departmental notings, or related files beyond the committee minutes, unless special circumstances justify wider disclosure; the request for further inspection was therefore refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111753" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (11) TMI 217 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73474</link>
      <description>A technical evaluation under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act found that specialised grades of silica proposed for manufacture were distinct from reserved precipitated silica for the Small Scale Sector because they required spray-drying, higher capital investment, and different end uses. On that basis, the products were treated as outside the small-scale reservation, so the objection to approval of the industrial licence and foreign collaboration failed. The document also states that a trade rival is not ordinarily entitled to inspect another applicant&#039;s papers, departmental notings, or related files beyond the committee minutes, unless special circumstances justify wider disclosure; the request for further inspection was therefore refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>