<?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>1993 (12) TMI 240 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305563</link>
    <description>Union funds may be used only for the purposes permitted by the Trade Unions Act and the union constitution. Section 15 confines expenditure of general funds to statutory objects, while Section 16 separately regulates political funds; a purchase of shares in the open market was treated as speculative and outside those powers. The union constitution also required union money to be deposited and operated through a scheduled bank, which was inconsistent with using substantial funds to buy shares in the names of office-bearers. General body approval could not validate a transaction that was otherwise unauthorised. The share purchase was held illegal, and the Industrial Court&#039;s refusal of interim relief was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2022 10:42:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=698359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (12) TMI 240 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305563</link>
      <description>Union funds may be used only for the purposes permitted by the Trade Unions Act and the union constitution. Section 15 confines expenditure of general funds to statutory objects, while Section 16 separately regulates political funds; a purchase of shares in the open market was treated as speculative and outside those powers. The union constitution also required union money to be deposited and operated through a scheduled bank, which was inconsistent with using substantial funds to buy shares in the names of office-bearers. General body approval could not validate a transaction that was otherwise unauthorised. The share purchase was held illegal, and the Industrial Court&#039;s refusal of interim relief was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>