<?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>1998 (3) TMI 715 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456167</link>
    <description>The Court revisited conflicting interpretations of &quot;industry&quot; under the Industrial Disputes Act, noting that the expansive test had created uncertainty by covering many organised activities, including philanthropic, educational and research institutions, while the narrower approach applied noscitur a sociis to exclude non-commercial or self-serving activities. It observed that the Coir Board was constituted to promote the coir industry and not to run an industry of its own, although it would still fall within the prevailing Bangalore Water Supply test. Finding serious uncertainty and practical difficulty in the existing law, the Court directed reconsideration of the issue by a larger Bench and placed the matter before the Chief Justice of India.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2024 11:46:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=758844" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 715 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456167</link>
      <description>The Court revisited conflicting interpretations of &quot;industry&quot; under the Industrial Disputes Act, noting that the expansive test had created uncertainty by covering many organised activities, including philanthropic, educational and research institutions, while the narrower approach applied noscitur a sociis to exclude non-commercial or self-serving activities. It observed that the Coir Board was constituted to promote the coir industry and not to run an industry of its own, although it would still fall within the prevailing Bangalore Water Supply test. Finding serious uncertainty and practical difficulty in the existing law, the Court directed reconsideration of the issue by a larger Bench and placed the matter before the Chief Justice of India.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456167</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>