<?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>2002 (4) TMI 890 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127871</link>
    <description>A body falls within Article 12 when, on a cumulative assessment, it is financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by pervasive Government control and operates as an instrumentality of the State. Applying that test, the Supreme Court held that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research was created for national scientific and industrial development, was extensively controlled by Government in its governing structure, finances, rules, service conditions, and expenditure, and was therefore a State within Article 12. The earlier contrary decision was overruled. The dissent considered the Council non-statutory, lacking governmental or law-making power, and not subject to deep and pervasive control, and would have maintained the earlier view.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2025 11:36:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164746" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 890 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127871</link>
      <description>A body falls within Article 12 when, on a cumulative assessment, it is financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by pervasive Government control and operates as an instrumentality of the State. Applying that test, the Supreme Court held that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research was created for national scientific and industrial development, was extensively controlled by Government in its governing structure, finances, rules, service conditions, and expenditure, and was therefore a State within Article 12. The earlier contrary decision was overruled. The dissent considered the Council non-statutory, lacking governmental or law-making power, and not subject to deep and pervasive control, and would have maintained the earlier view.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>