<?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>1978 (11) TMI 168 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459062</link>
    <description>A staff canteen restricted to employees may still fall within the broader municipal concept of a catering establishment, because public access is not an essential condition for that category. The Factories Act requirement that a canteen be maintained on a no-profit basis governs the employer&#039;s welfare obligation and does not prevent the independent canteen operator from being treated as carrying on a commercial activity. Compliance with the Factories Act and Rules does not dispense with the separate need to obtain a municipal licence, as the two regimes serve different purposes. On that basis, the conviction and sentence for operating without the requisite licence were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=779538" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (11) TMI 168 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459062</link>
      <description>A staff canteen restricted to employees may still fall within the broader municipal concept of a catering establishment, because public access is not an essential condition for that category. The Factories Act requirement that a canteen be maintained on a no-profit basis governs the employer&#039;s welfare obligation and does not prevent the independent canteen operator from being treated as carrying on a commercial activity. Compliance with the Factories Act and Rules does not dispense with the separate need to obtain a municipal licence, as the two regimes serve different purposes. On that basis, the conviction and sentence for operating without the requisite licence were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>