<?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>1988 (4) TMI 439 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287629</link>
    <description>The exemption clauses in the Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Acts were interpreted to exclude establishments under the Central Government. Applying the statutory schemes of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the SC treated deep and pervasive governmental control over capital, management, policy directions, appointments, regulation and liquidation as decisive. The word &quot;under&quot; was held to mean subordination or control, not ownership. Separate corporate personality and limited day-to-day autonomy did not alter that relationship. State Bank of India and nationalised banks were therefore treated as establishments under the Central Government for the exemption clauses.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:19:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=611090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 439 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287629</link>
      <description>The exemption clauses in the Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Acts were interpreted to exclude establishments under the Central Government. Applying the statutory schemes of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the SC treated deep and pervasive governmental control over capital, management, policy directions, appointments, regulation and liquidation as decisive. The word &quot;under&quot; was held to mean subordination or control, not ownership. Separate corporate personality and limited day-to-day autonomy did not alter that relationship. State Bank of India and nationalised banks were therefore treated as establishments under the Central Government for the exemption clauses.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287629</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>