Court : Kolkata
FORM NO.(J2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (income tax) ORIGINAL SIDE Present: Honble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta And Honble Justice Indrajit Chatterjee ITA NO.32 of 2001 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL I, CALCUTTA Versus APEEJAY MEDICAL RESEARCH & WELFARE ASSOCIATION (P) LTD.Advocate for the Appellant: Mr.S.B.Saraf, Adv.Advocate for the respondent: Mr.S.K. Kapoor, Sr.Adv.Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Hearing concluded on: 19.02.2016 Judgement delivered on:18.03.2016. GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA J. The revenue has come up in appeal against a judgement and order dated 18th August, 2000 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, E Bench, Calcutta pertaining to the assessment year 1988-89 affirming an order of the CIT(A) allowing exemption under Section 10(22A) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The following questions of law were formulated at the time of admission of the appeal:i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ107
P. Jyothimani, J.1. These appeals are filed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu against the common order of the learned Judge dated 9.3.2007 made in W.P.Nos.1991 of 1996, 11133 of 1998, 1932 of 2003 and 4533 of 2004, by which the learned Judge has struck down a proviso to Explanation II(5) to Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (for brevity, 'the Welfare Fund Act').2. The first respondent in W.A. No. 823/2007, respondents 1 to 6 in W.A. No. 824/2007, respondents 1 to 5 in W.A. No. 826/2007, respondent in W.A. No. 829/2007, respondents 1 to 5 in W.A. No. 830/2007, first respondent in W.A. No. 831/2007 and respondents 1 to 6 in W.A. No. 832/2007 (for brevity, 'the contesting respondents'), who are the advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu after having retired from Government and other services, have challenged the above said proviso by which the benefit of payment of Rs. 2 Lakhs to a member of the Advocates Welfare ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of late Sri.M. Venugopal, who was an Advocate of the Thrissur Bar. Sri. Venugopal was a member of the Kerala Advocates’ Welfare Fund administered by the first respondent. When Sri. Venugopal joined the Advocates’ Welfare Fund, he had nominated his wife Smt. Kanakam Vanugopal as his nominee. However, Smt. Kanakam Vanugopal expired on 11.8.2002 and a fresh nomination was not made. Subsequently, Sri. Venugopal also expired on 6.11.2009. Exts.P1 and P2 are the death certificates of Smt. Kanakam Venugopal and Sri. M.Venugopal. 2. On the basis that they are the sole legal heirs of late Sri. Venugopal, petitioners submitted Ext.P4 application to the first respondent, claiming disbursement of an amount of Rs.3,14,285/-, being the Welfare Fund due to the deceased. To that application, Ext.P5 communication was received, stating, inter alia, that the petitioners’ claim should be supported by a Succession Certificate issued by a competen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR2700; 2008(4)KCCRSN307
ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to constitute a Fund called 'Karnataka Registered Clerks' Welfare Fund' for payment of retirement benefits, etc. , to the Registered Clerks of Advocates in the State of Karnataka, in terms of Section 27 of the Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1983.2. I have heard Sri B.M. Arun, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Association, Sri H.M. Manjunath, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Sri Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.3. The case put forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Association of the State Level Advocates' Clerks and is registered with the Registrar of Societies, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore. The Advocates, Vakils, Barristers and Pleaders in turn engaged the services of persons to work under them as Clerks. Such of those Clerks who have been worki...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in Resolution No.286 of 2010 dated 17.7.2010, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to recognise the petitioner association as per Section 13 of the Tamilnadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987.ORDER1. The petitioner is an association of advocates practising in Gobichettipalayam and they have come up with the above writ petition challenging a resolution dated 17.7.2010 passed by the respondent, refusing to recognise the petitioner association in terms of Section 13 of the Tamilnadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987.2. Heard Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Y.Masood, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.3. As per the affidavit in support of the writ petition, the members of the petitioner association were originally the members Gobichettipalayam Bar Association, which is recogni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1994Ker24
ORDERP. Krishnamoorthy, J. 1. The question involved in this Original Petition is regarding the amount due to the petitioner who was an advocate from the Welfare Fund. 2. The petitioner enrolled as an advocate on 19-1-1942. He had been practising at Palghat and was a member of the Palghat District Bar Association till 31-3-1991. When the Kerala Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force, on his application he was admitted to the Fund and he continued as a member of the same till 31-3-1990 when he was removed from the rolls of the Bar Council on his request for retirement on account of poor health. Ext. P1 is the communication received by the petitioner from the Bar Council intimating the fact regarding removal of his name from the State Roll of Advocates with effect from 31-3-90. Along with his application for removal of his name from the rolls he had also applied on 12-1-1990 for payment of the amounts due to him from the Advocates' Welfare...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(1)KLT35
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a practising Advocate of this Court and is also a member of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association, hereinafter called the 'Association'. A resolution moved by some of the members condemning the conduct of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court in the constitution of a Full Bench which passed an interim order in a case by majority and a request to the Chief Justice to avoid repetition of such incidents was passed by the General Body of the Association on 8.10.2003. The full text of the resolution produced as Ext. P2 in the W.P. is extracted hereunder for easy reference:'We the members of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association express our grave concern over the manner in which a case which ordinarily ought to have been heard by a single Judge having jurisdiction over the subject, was listed before the Division Bench presided by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, at the request of the counsel for the petitioner without an express or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2013 27TH ASHADHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 27176 of 2011 (V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. K.N.GOPINATHAN NAIR, 'VASUNDHARA', PERUVARAM (WEST), NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN513. 2. P.S.BHARATHAN, PADMASOUDHAM, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN513. 3. SARASWATHI AMMA. N., W/O.P.R.GOVINDAN ELAYIDAM, SARASWATHI VILAS, MOOKAMBI LANE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN513. 4. S.SASIKALA, D/O.P.R.GOVINDAN ELAYIDAM, SARASWATHI VILAS, MOOKAMBI LANE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -683 513.5. S.HEMALATHA, D/O.P.R.GOVINDAN ELAYIDAM, SARASWATHI VILAS, MOOKAMBI LANE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN 68.513.6. S.SREEDEVI, D/O.P.R.GOVINDAN ELAYIDAM, SARASWATHI VILAS, MOOKAMBI LANE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -683 513.7. K.T.PAUL, KACHAPPILLY HOUSE, PARUTHARA, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -683 513.8. RAPHAEL RAVI.K., KAIMATHURUTHY HOUSE, VIII/133, NORTH PARAVUR,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant53
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Sri M. V. Shamanna, learned Government Advocate for the revision petitioners, and Sri Mahesh Wadiar for Sri Mohan Shanthana Goudar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This revision has been filed against the order dt. 24-1-1998 whereby the trial Court has refused to accept the appearance and vakalathnama put up by the Additional Government Pleader, Laxmeshwar, as it did not contain the Advocates' Welfare Fund Stamp which is required by law to be affixed on the Vakalathnama. 3. The learned Government Counsel contended that the Court below acted illegally in rejecting the Vakalathnama and in directing that the case shall be proceeded ex parte. 4. I have perused Section 23 of the Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1983. It will be appropriate at this juncture to quote the same in extenso. 'Section 23. Vakalath to bear stamps.- (1) Every Advocate shall affix one welfare Fund stamp on every vakalath filed by him and no vakalath shall be filed befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(2)ALD266; 2001(2)ALT419
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ or direction quashing the proceedings of the respondent in Roc No.APWF/419/92 dated 2-12-1992 and for a consequential direction to grant the death benefits of late Sri Shaik Mahaboob, Advocate, Guntur entitled under the Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 to the petitioners with interest from June, 1989 and costs.2. The first petitioner is the daughter, second petitioner is the son and the third petitioner is the wife of the deceased Shaik Mahboob, Advocate.3. It is stated that late Shaik Mahaboob practiced as an Advocate at Guntur and he was the member of Guntur Bar Association. He died on 8-2-1990. Before his death, he paid the admission fee and also the subscription in June, 1989 for enrolment as member under the provisions of A.P. Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') and he submitted the necessary application in his behalf as prescribed by the Bar Council.4. It is stated that the first petitioner bein...
Tag this Judgment!