<?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>1989 (9) TMI 343 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101914</link>
    <description>A distillery unit proposing to employ fewer than fifty workers was held not to fall within the Central Government industrial licensing requirement under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, because section 11 read with the definitions of &quot;factory&quot; and &quot;industrial undertaking&quot; is attracted only at that workforce threshold. The petitioner&#039;s pleaded employment level below fifty was not effectively disputed, so the premise that a central licence was mandatory could not sustain. On that basis, refusal of permanent registration and withholding of pollution-clearance processing solely for want of such licence was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:31:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138963" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 343 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101914</link>
      <description>A distillery unit proposing to employ fewer than fifty workers was held not to fall within the Central Government industrial licensing requirement under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, because section 11 read with the definitions of &quot;factory&quot; and &quot;industrial undertaking&quot; is attracted only at that workforce threshold. The petitioner&#039;s pleaded employment level below fifty was not effectively disputed, so the premise that a central licence was mandatory could not sustain. On that basis, refusal of permanent registration and withholding of pollution-clearance processing solely for want of such licence was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>