<?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>1993 (5) TMI 167 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157732</link>
    <description>Sandalwood oil was held to fall within &quot;wood-oil&quot; in the inclusive definition of &quot;forest produce&quot; under section 2(f)(1) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The Court applied purposive interpretation, reading the term in statutory context and in light of the Act&#039;s object of conserving and protecting forest wealth. It rejected a narrow dictionary-based meaning and held that wood-oil is not confined to oleoresin from Dipterocarpus trees. Because sandalwood oil is extracted from sandalwood trees and roots removed from the forest, proceedings under section 51(1) could validly continue and the trial court had jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (5) TMI 167 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157732</link>
      <description>Sandalwood oil was held to fall within &quot;wood-oil&quot; in the inclusive definition of &quot;forest produce&quot; under section 2(f)(1) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The Court applied purposive interpretation, reading the term in statutory context and in light of the Act&#039;s object of conserving and protecting forest wealth. It rejected a narrow dictionary-based meaning and held that wood-oil is not confined to oleoresin from Dipterocarpus trees. Because sandalwood oil is extracted from sandalwood trees and roots removed from the forest, proceedings under section 51(1) could validly continue and the trial court had jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157732</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>