<?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>1961 (4) TMI 135 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287821</link>
    <description>The occupier under the Factories Act is the person with ultimate control over the factory&#039;s affairs, and that control ordinarily remains with the owner unless it is shown to have been completely transferred. On the materials placed before the Chief Inspector, no document, resolution, or other evidence showed that the company had vested ultimate control in the first petitioner, and questions about managing agents and directorship were left unanswered. In the absence of proof of transfer of control, the Chief Inspector could insist on a renewal application signed by the actual occupier, and the first petitioner was not established as the occupier.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 18:15:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 135 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287821</link>
      <description>The occupier under the Factories Act is the person with ultimate control over the factory&#039;s affairs, and that control ordinarily remains with the owner unless it is shown to have been completely transferred. On the materials placed before the Chief Inspector, no document, resolution, or other evidence showed that the company had vested ultimate control in the first petitioner, and questions about managing agents and directorship were left unanswered. In the absence of proof of transfer of control, the Chief Inspector could insist on a renewal application signed by the actual occupier, and the first petitioner was not established as the occupier.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>