Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.33 seconds)The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
18. There can be no dispute with the proposition that a distinction has been made between 'scheduled industries' and 'industrial undertakings' in the Central Act of 1951 and separate provisions have been made for registration of Industrial undertakings, for licencing of new industrial undertakings and for the direct management of industrial undertakings by the Central Government in certain cases. It also cannot be questioned that separate provisions have also been made for regulation of scheduled industries and other matters pertaining to grant of licence, investigation etc. However, the separate provisions contained in the Central Act of 1951, pertaining to industrial undertakings and scheduled industries would not automatically bring the scheduled industries under the definition of industrial undertakings unless the conditions as discussed above are satisfied. Therefore, the decision in AIR 1970 SC 1453 (supra) does not help the case of the respondents in any way especially when the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal (AIR 1987 SC 251) (supra) has clearly given a finding on this point after considering the definitions of 'industrial undertaking' and 'factory' in the Central Act of 1951.