difference that, while in the Madras.Gymkhana Club the ouidoor games promoted are Golf, Rugby, Foot-ball and Tennis, in the Club the two outdoor games on which the Club concentrates arc Cricket and Tennis. Both have indoor games, while the Club in addition, maintains a Swimming Pool for the Members. Both Clubs run tournaments and matches for the benefit of members and open tournaments are held for exhibition to members as well as non-members. Both Clubs are maintaining Catering Departments for the entertainment of members and their guests. In both Clubs guests are allowed only when introduced by members. The annual turnover in both Clubs in the Caterin~ Department is in the region of about Rs. 9 to I 0 lakhs. Residential accommodation is maintained in both Clubs and is open only to Members. Both Clubs have capital investments from which income accrues to them, though the scale of investments by the Madras Gymkhana Club is much smaller inasmuch as its total investment is of the region of Rs. 4! lakhs, while the Club has investment of immovable property to the tune of about Rs. 67 lakhs. In both Clubs, admission to outsiders is restricted in similar manner. The management in both cases is by Committees elected by Members and annual accounts arc made up, audited and laid before and adopted at tlie annual general meetings. Even in other respects, such as in the matter of admission of Members, relations between members, .inter se, convening of meetings, and expulsion of members, the rules are similar. In neither of the two Clubs are profits distributed between members. It was, thus, urged that there is, in fact, no substantial difference between the nature of the Club and the Madras Gymkhana Club and, consequently, it should be held that this Club is not an industry. It was further urged that a few minor differences will not alter the legal inference and will not make the ratio of the Madras Gymkhana Club(') case inapplicable.
