Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 343 (5.17 seconds)
Documents citing Daman Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 4 April, 1985

Devyani Gulabsi vs Saidale Co-Operative Housing Society ... on 6 October, 2025

operative Society, he loses his individuality with the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and Bye-laws. The member has to speak through the Society or rather the Society alone can act and speaks for him qua the rights and duties of the Society as a body (see Daman Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 670 : AIR 1985 SC 973).
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Poompuhar Shipping Corporation ... vs The Income Tax Officer on 9 October, 2013

Read in the context of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1985) 2 SCC 670 = AIR 1985 SC 973 (Daman Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others), ships, other than those referred to under Section 44BB are included for the purposes of Clause (iva) . Thus, as a matter of language, ship, as an apparatus, with which the business is carried on, is an equipment and as held in the decision of the House of Lords, apparatus includes all chattels provided for the purposes of the business of a person other than the stock-in-trade. It is no doubt true that a plain ordinary meaning of the word may be elusive. But when the word has a potentially wider meaning in the context of the provisions, as pointed out in the decisions in the interpretation of the words, to quote, the House of Lords, there is a danger of mistaking the plain and ordinary meaning from the one most frequently used in practice. The question we have to hence ask oneself is what the word means in the context of the provisions therein. Thus, in the context in which the word 'equipment' appears and the exclusion of those referable to the income under Section 44BB, it is evident, that other than the excluded category, 'ship', otherwise, would fall as 'equipment'. Thus the word 'equipment' must receive a meaning in the widest sense in this context even in a sense, etymologically wider than what is popularly understood.
Madras High Court Cites 113 - Cited by 4 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

The Bengal Secretariat Cooperative ... vs Sri Aloke Kumar on 18 October, 2022

53. By now it is well established position that once a person becomes a member of the Co-operative Society, he loses his individuality with the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and bye-laws. The member has to speak through the Society or rather the Society alone can act and speaks for him qua the rights and duties of the Society as a body (see : Daman Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 670 : AIR 1985 SC 973).
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Nadippisai Pulavar vs Union Of India on 8 June, 2010

113. The decision reported in (1985) 2 SCC 670 (Daman Singh Vs. State of Punjab) was relied upon for the proposition that once a person becomes a member of the Co-operative Society, he loses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the Statute and the by-laws and that he can only speak and act through the society or rather the society alone can act and speak for him qua rights or duties of the Society as a body, therefore no individual notice was required to be given to the members. That was a case where one Co-operative Society was amalgamated with another Co-operative Society under Section 13(8) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. The above statement of law was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that situation of amalgamation of one society with another society wherein it was held that the right of the individual member has no role to play. In contrast to the case on hand, where it comes to the question of bifurcating the cane area owned by the individual member, the notice issued to the Co-operative sugar mill in which the owner of the cane area is a member derives far different rights than what has been stated in relation to amalgamation of one Society with another Society. We therefore do not find any scope to apply the ratio laid down in the said decision to the facts of this case.
Madras High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

M.Arumugam vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 January, 2013

Referring to the said decision, the Delhi High Court referred to the decision reported in 1985 (3) SCR 580 Daman Singh Case and pointed out that the principle of voluntary and open membership would exclude the State's interference in the affairs of the society. If the society has any requirement in the byelaws about the characteristics required to be possessed by an intending member, it has the right to restrict its membership in accordance with the byelaw of the society. Thus, the fundamental principle on which every cooperative society functions is voluntary and open membership and democratic control. Thus, when forming of a cooperative society is the result of free will of members joining to form a Society and likewise, when a society admits a person into the membership, the voluntariness with which they joined to form an association would continue to decide on who should be assoicated with them in their common object.
Madras High Court Cites 186 - Cited by 11 - C Venkataraman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next