Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.53 seconds)Section 2 in The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Factories Act, 1948
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.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Apprentices Act, 1961
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.
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 :
The Companies Act, 1956
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: