Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing M.P. Sethurama Menon vs Thaiparambath Kunhukutty Amma'S ... on 22 July, 1966

S. Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 2 February, 1979

5. The Kerala High Court in M.P. Sethurama Menon v. Meenakshi Amma and Ors., (supra) construed the expression 'trade or business' as connoting commercial activity and as not including the practice of the legal profession. The learned Judges referred to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and drew a distinction between the words 'business' and 'profession.' As mentioned by us earlier, we do not think that it is right to ascribe to the word 'business' occurring in the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the same meaning that the word may have when it occurs in other statutory provisions. The word must be interpreted in the context of the statute in which it occurs and not in the context of other statutes or in a manner alien to the context of the statute concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

S.Mohan Lal vs R. Kondiah on 5 February, 1979

The Kerala High Court in M.P. Sethurama Menon v. Meenakshi Amma & Ors., (supra) construed the expression 'trade or business' as connoting commercial activity and as not including the practice of the legal profession. The learned Judges referred to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and drew a distinction between the words 'business' and 'profession.' As mentioned by us earlier, we do not think that it is right to ascribe to the word 'business' occurring in the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the same meaning that the word may have when it occurs in other statutory provisions. The word must be interpreted in the context of the statute in which it occurs and not in the context of other statutes or in a manner alien to the context of the statute concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 51 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Chettiar vs Venkita Krishna Iyer on 21 March, 2002

(3) SCC 190) and in Mohan Lal v. R. Kondiah, AIR 1979 SC 1132, the decisions of this Court in Hassan v. Mohammed (1994 (1) KLT 502); Krishnankutty Menon v. Malathi, 1985 KLT 6, and in Sethurama Menon v. Meenakshi Amma (1966 KLT 655) are no longer good law. In view of the above, it cannot be now stated that the profession carried on by the tenant is not for the purpose of his business.
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - J B Koshy - Full Document

Thazhath Valappil Prasanth vs Kalliani And Ors. on 23 February, 2007

In that decision, the dictum in Madhava Menon v. Kunji Amma 29 Coch. 503 that a thavazhi cannot be created by mere agreement among the members of a tharwad and that where property is acquired by some alone of the members of the tharwad, who are incapable of constituting a thavazhi or corporate unit as understood in Marumakkathayam Law and they do not hold such property with the incidents of ordinary thavazhi property, was quoted with approval and it was held that Marumakkathayam Law does nor recognise an artificial group composed of some children alone of a mother as a thavazhi.
Kerala High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - S Nambiar - Full Document

Ramanathan vs State Of Kerala on 22 November, 1990

9. Though in a different context, M.S Menon, CJ. speaking for himself and P. Govindan Nair, J. (as he then was) observed in Sethurama Menoh v. Meenakshi Amma, 1966 KLT 655 that the expression "trade or business" connotes a commercial activity, whereas the expression "profession" does not, and is virtually at the other end of the scale. The expression 'profession' used to be confined to the practice of theology, law and medicine. With the extension of the applications of science and learning, however, the expression has come to coyer other vocations as well. But the dividing line between what is a profession and what is a trade or business stilt subsists and is of material consequence. Nobody uses the word "customer" with reference to a professional man. Similarly, the word "client" is not ordinarily used with reference to a business place. Hence the particular limb in the definition "shop" referring to "prem-ises.....where services are rendered to customers" cannot obviously be expanded to embrace the office of a professional man.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dr. K. Thomas Varghese vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 March, 1986

12. The question whether an advocate is carrying on a trade or business within the meaning of the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Contract) Act, 1965, came up for decision before a Division Bench of this court in Sethurama Menon v. Meenakshi Amma [1966] KLT 665; AIR 1967 Ker 88. M. S. Menon C.J., stated on behalf of the Bench at page 666 (at p. 89 of 1967 AIR (Ker.) ):
Kerala High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 6 - M F Beevi - Full Document
1   2 Next