Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.32 seconds)
Employees State Insurancecorporation vs M/S. Apex Engineering Pvt. Ltd on 6 November, 1997 cites

Regional Director Employees A State ... vs Ramanuja Match Industrirs on 27 November, 1984

It must, therefore, be held that the Managing Director of respondent-company could not be treated on par with partner of a partnership firm being given some remuneration for his extra work. The decision of this Court in Ramanuja Match Industries (Supra) was, therefore, clearly inapplicable to the facts of the present case and was erroneously pressed in service by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment in deciding the appeal of the appellant-Corporation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 136 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Guru Prasad, Chhattu Ram And Chhattu Ram ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 14 May, 1985

But even assuming that the High Court was right that Shri Dhanwate could be said to be principal employer there is nothing in that Act to indicate that a Managing Director being the principal employer cannot also be an employee. It other words he can have dual capacity. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned we can profitably refer to a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in the case of Shri Ram Prasad (supra). In that case this Court was concerned with the question whether the Managing Director of a company can be said to be a servant of the company whose remuneration could be treated to be salary assessable to income tax. The relevant observations of this court speaking through Jaganmohan Reddy, J., as found in paragraph 6 and 7 of the Report read as under:
Patna High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

J.K. Industries Limited Etc.Etc vs The Chief Inspector Of Factories And ... on 25 September, 1996

Now is the time for us to consider the dissenting voice of Calcutta High Court emanating from its decision in the case of M/s Ashok Plastic (P) Ltd. (Supra). In that case of director of the company who was paid for some remuneration was held not to satisfy the requirements of Section 2(9) of the Act, Now it must be noted that the Calcutta High Court in that case was considering an entirely different fact situation. Being a director of the company some remuneration was paid to him in connection with his specialised activities. It was found as a fact that he was not employed on remuneration on a regular basis. This distinctive features itself would rule out the applicability of the said decision to the facts of the present case. However certain observation were made by Sukumar Chakravarty, J., speaking for the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in that case in paragraph 27 of the Report to the following effect :
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 124 - K T Thomas - Full Document

Bacha F. Guzdar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 28 October, 1954

In this connection we may also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Bacha f. Guzdar v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay [(1955) 1 SCR 876]. A Constitution Bench of this Court speaking through Ghulam Hasan, J., brought out the clear legal distinction between a firm and a company by observing that the position of a shareholder of a company is altogether different from that of a partner of a firm. A company is a juristic entity distinct from the shareholders but a firm is a collective name or an alias for all the partners. Of course the decision was rendered in the light of Income-tax Act wherein the question was whether agriculture income would include the divided paid to a shareholder of a company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 349 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Employees' State Insurance ... vs Sujirkar'S Tile Works on 18 December, 1990

We may at this stage refer to two decisions to which our attention was invited by learned amicus curiae counsel. A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Ernakulam v. Victory Tile Works [44 Indian Factories Journal 304] had to consider whether a person who satisfies the definition of `principal employer' under Section 2 (17) of the Act could simultaneously satisfy the requirements of the definition of the term `employee' under Section 2(9) of the Act. Subramonian Poti, J. (as the then was), speaking for the court observed that Employees' State Insurance Act, 1946 is intended to cover all wage-earners whether they are manager, supervisors, clerks, workmen or any other class of employees provided they fall within the definition of `employee' under Section 2(9) of the Act. It is order from the scheme of the Act that there is no apparent conflict of interest between the principal employer and the employee and there is no reason why if a person falls within the definition of `principal employer' he cannot in certain cases be also an `employee' he cannot in certain cases be also an `employee'. In our view, the aforesaid decision squarely falls in line with the scheme of the Act and the decisions of other High Courts on the point to which we have made a reference earlier.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1