<?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>1968 (5) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171680</link>
    <description>A doctor&#039;s dispensary is not a &quot;commercial establishment&quot; under section 2(4) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 merely because it employs staff or operates from a dispensary. Reading the definition with the Act as a whole, the Court applied noscitur a sociis to hold that &quot;business, trade or profession&quot; refers to activities carried on in a commercial manner as organised units of work and employment. A liberal profession such as medicine falls within the provision only if its organisation and mode of working show the character of a trade or business. On the facts stated, the dispensary did not satisfy that test and the conviction under section 52(e) read with section 62 was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:02:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (5) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171680</link>
      <description>A doctor&#039;s dispensary is not a &quot;commercial establishment&quot; under section 2(4) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 merely because it employs staff or operates from a dispensary. Reading the definition with the Act as a whole, the Court applied noscitur a sociis to hold that &quot;business, trade or profession&quot; refers to activities carried on in a commercial manner as organised units of work and employment. A liberal profession such as medicine falls within the provision only if its organisation and mode of working show the character of a trade or business. On the facts stated, the dispensary did not satisfy that test and the conviction under section 52(e) read with section 62 was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>