<?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>1966 (4) TMI 72 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171470</link>
    <description>The expression &quot;coal mine&quot; under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 was construed to include not only the excavation where coal is won, but also subsidiary works, machinery, tramways and sidings only when they belong to, and are under the same ownership as, the mine. Ownership was treated as the controlling element, and the word &quot;or&quot; before &quot;belonging to a coal mine&quot; was read as &quot;and&quot; to avoid treating independent plant or transport facilities as part of a coal mine. The 1965 amendment was used as confirming this interpretation of the earlier definition. On the stated facts, a separate coke plant owner was not the owner of a coal mine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:08:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (4) TMI 72 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171470</link>
      <description>The expression &quot;coal mine&quot; under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 was construed to include not only the excavation where coal is won, but also subsidiary works, machinery, tramways and sidings only when they belong to, and are under the same ownership as, the mine. Ownership was treated as the controlling element, and the word &quot;or&quot; before &quot;belonging to a coal mine&quot; was read as &quot;and&quot; to avoid treating independent plant or transport facilities as part of a coal mine. The 1965 amendment was used as confirming this interpretation of the earlier definition. On the stated facts, a separate coke plant owner was not the owner of a coal mine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>