Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Sakharam Narayan Kherdekar vs City Of Nagpur Corporation on 25 September, 1962

Spentex Industries Ltd vs Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan Llp on 12 May, 2020

31. The other judgement relied upon by the plaintiff is the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sakharam Narayan Kherdekar vs. City of Nagpur Corporation & Ors. (supra). That was a case relating to Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. The concerned official had sought registration of the office of an advocate under the aforenoted act. In those circumstances, the court held as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 1 - J Nath - Full Document

Narendra Keshrichand Fuladi And ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 September, 1984

13. We may not treat the same ground which has been covered by this Court in Sakharam Narayan Kherdekar's case (supra), which distinguishes the law practice from other commercial ventures. The nature of the law practice, contracted with other commercial ventures, is distinguished by four features, according to Henry S. Drinker in his book "Legal Ethics", page 5. The primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from business are : (1) a duty of public service in which one may attain the highest eminence without making much money, (2) a relation as an "officer of Court" to administration of justice involving through sincerity, integrity and reliability, (3) a relation to clients in the highest degree fiduciary, and (4) a relation to colleagues at the bar characterised by candor, fairness and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients. The part a lawyer plays in the administration of justice partakes to some extent or participation in sharing sovereign or regal functions of the State.
Bombay High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Devendraprasad Mahasukhram on 14 February, 1966

The decision which was, however, strongly relied upon by Sri Mehta was the decision in Sakharam Narayan Kherdekar v. City of Nagpur Corporation [1964 - I L.L.J. 156] where the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Abhyankara and Paranjape, JJ., interpreted the terms "commercial establishment" in the very Act itself in the context of a legal practitioner's establishment and it held that a legal practitioner's establishment would not fall within the definition of a "commercial establishment" under the Act. The reasons which appealed to the learned Judges were as under :
Gujarat High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tehsil Bar Association , Sadar Tehsil ... vs U.P. Power Corporation Limited And 3 ... on 3 August, 2023

"An activity to be a profession must be one carried on by an individual by his personal skill, intelligence and an individual by his personal skill, intelligence and dependent on individual characteristics. Sakharam Narayan Kherdekar v. City of Nagpur Corporation, (AIR 1964 Bom 200, 210 (Bombay Shops and Establishment Act (79 of 1948, S. 2(4)).
Allahabad High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document

Merchant (N.E.) vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 31 July, 1967

22. Sri Yande on behalf of the applicants has produced before us a copy of a judgment delivered by the same Honorary Presidency Magistrate in which he held that the accused in that case, one Sri Joshi, who was a chartered accountant was not liable under the Act in view of this Court's decision in Sakharam Narayan Kherdekar v. City of Nagpur Corporation [1964 - I L.L.J. 156] (vide supra) to which we have already referred above. In that case also the accused Joshi was helped by three articled clerks. The decision in that case was given on the same day, that is, on 22 June 1966, as the decision now under revision. We do not see why the learned Magistrate should have taken two contrary views in these two judgments given on the same day. In one, he held that the establishment of a chartered accountant is not a commercial establishment. In the other, he held that it was. It is regrettable that such contrary decisions should have been given on the same day.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 4 - D G Palekar - Full Document

Sher Mohomed Musahib vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 February, 1970

7. The learned advocate for the applicant relies on certain observations made in Sakharam v. City of Nagpur Corporation . That was a case in which an advocate's profession was the subject-matter and it was contended that an advocate's profession was not a commercial activity. Although, therefore, the facts and circumstances of that case were entirely different, yet the learned advocate for the applicant invites my attention to certain observations in this case on the principle of interpretation and urges that that principle should be adopted here. This Court had observed at page 635 of that case that the principle of interpretation of a provision of a statute was that where words of very wide amplitude are used in a definition, caution has to be taken to see whether even within the definition itself there is an indication which limits the amplitude or wide range which would otherwise be given to the bare words. It was argued there that the definition of "commercial establishment" indicates by the use of the word "commercial" a limitation to the establishment. Now, it is true that if words of very wide amplitude are used in a definition, we have to be cautions and construe them not only by the plain and grammatical meaning of the words used but also by noticing the context in which those words are used.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khatija Abdulla Ibrahim Tai And Ors. vs The National Tobacco Company Of India ... on 18 December, 1970

Reference was made to Sakharam Narayan Kherdekar v. City of Nagpur Corpn. [1964 - I L.L.J. 156]; A.I.R. 1964 Bom. 200. In that case the Division Bench of the Maharashtra High Court was called upon to consider whether the office of advocate would be a commercial establishment within the meaning of the Act. It was contended that as the definition requires an establishment which carries on business, trade or profession, the normal meaning that can be given to this expression would be that there must be some organised activity carried on by one or more persons which can be described as business, trade or profession. Contrasting this expression with the definition of "shop" it was contended that if the shop was to bear the meaning of a place or premises where any such activity is carried on, then it is improper to describe a commercial establishment as an establishment which carries on any business, trade or profession. It was also contended that it was not merely an establishment in the sense of premises in which business, trade or profession is carried on which is to be considered as within the meaning of Act but that establishment must be a commercial establishment. Repelling this contention, it was observed that it is not every establishment in the sense of premises or buildings where business, trade or profession is carried on that is intended to be governed by the Act, but only those premises carrying on one or the other of these kinds of activities which are of commercial nature. It was further observed that the word "establishment" in "commercial establishment" must have been used by the Legislature in the sense of place or premises. Having reached this conclusion which created certain difficulty in the interpretation of the expression "commercial establishment" without any implication of premises therein, it was observed that phraseology in defining "commercial establishment" was far from happy.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - D A Desai - Full Document

Shiv Narayan And Anr. vs M.P. Electricity Board And Ors. on 6 May, 1999

An activity to be a profession must be one carried on by an individual by his personal skill, intelligence and an individual by his personal skill, intelligence and dependent on individual characteristics. Sakharam Narayan Kherdekar v. City of Nagpur Corporation, AIR 1964 Bom 200, 210 (Bombay Shops and Establishments Act (79 of 1948, Section 2(4)).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 13 - A K Mathur - Full Document
1   2 3 Next