<?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>1984 (9) TMI 296 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183977</link>
    <description>Temporary statutory control of management under section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 does not make a private industrial undertaking an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government for purposes of section 32(4) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The authorised controller only substitutes management; the undertaking retains its identity, ownership and legal character, so the bonus exclusion does not apply merely because control has been assumed. The reasoning also treats the statutory framework as preserving the undertaking rather than converting it into Government business, and indicates that bonus liability, if relevant, would depend on the successor statutory arrangement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:46:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 296 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183977</link>
      <description>Temporary statutory control of management under section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 does not make a private industrial undertaking an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government for purposes of section 32(4) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The authorised controller only substitutes management; the undertaking retains its identity, ownership and legal character, so the bonus exclusion does not apply merely because control has been assumed. The reasoning also treats the statutory framework as preserving the undertaking rather than converting it into Government business, and indicates that bonus liability, if relevant, would depend on the successor statutory arrangement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>