SAKHARAM NARAYAN KHERDEKAR Vs. CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION
LAWS(BOM)-1962-9-12
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on September 25,1962

SAKHARAM NARAYAN KHERDEKAR Appellant
VERSUS
CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

M'KAY V. RUTHERFORD [REFERRED TO]
COOMLIER V. BERKS JUSTICES [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATED MUNICIPAL AND SHIRE COUNCILS EMPLOYEES UNION V. LORD MAYOR ALDERMAN,COUNCILLORS AND CITIZENS OF MELBOURNE [REFERRED TO]
COMMR. OF INLAND REVENUE V. MAXSE [REFERRED TO]
WILLIAM ESPLON SON AND SWAINSTON LTD. V. INLAND REVENUE COMMR. [REFERRED TO]
CORRIE V. INLAND REVENUE COMMR. [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATED STATE SCHOOL TEACHER'S ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA V. STATE OF VICTORIA [REFERRED TO]
KALIDAS DHANJIBHAI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
HARIPRASAD SHIVSHANKER SHUKIA AND ANOTHOR BARSI LIGHT RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED VS. A D DIVELKAR:K N JOGLEKAR [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MYSORE TRAVANCORE COCHIN AND COORG BANGALORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE VS. INDO MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED PANGAL VITTAL NAYAK AND CO LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. HOSPITAL MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED TO]
CORPORATION OF CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION OF CITY OF NAGPUR CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION VS. ITS EMPLOYEES:FULSING MISTRY:N H MAJUMDAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. BALDEO PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
RAMDHANDAS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL UNION OF COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES BOMBAY INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY INTERVENER VS. M B MEHER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL UNION OF COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES VS. M R MEHER [REFERRED TO]
P A PAUL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS AND SOUTHERN MAHRATTA RY CO LTD VS. BEZWADA MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP [LAWS(DLH)-2020-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANATHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1990-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. B.N.MAGON [LAWS(DLH)-2023-3-238] [REFERRED TO]
DORAB PIROJSHA SIGANPORIA VS. PRESIDENT AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-1985-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV NARAYAN VS. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(MPH)-1999-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2000-12-17] [REFERRED]
N E MERCHANT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1967-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHER MOHOMED MUSAHIB VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1970-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
SUMATIBAI ANANDRAO VS. PUNAMCHAND P LOHADE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. A. F. FERGUSON & COMPANY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-5-75] [REFERRED TO]
B.N. MAGON VS. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-295] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DHANLAXMI V MEISHERI [LAWS(BOM)-1981-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NAGPUR VS. DATTATRAYA BALKRISHNA NANIWADEKAR [LAWS(BOM)-1978-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
P and H HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCN VS. CHANDIGARH ADMN [LAWS(P&H)-1987-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT BHASIN VS. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT [LAWS(DLH)-2010-3-112] [REFERRED TO]
PERFECT PAPER AND STEEL CONVERTERS PRIVATE LIMITEDS VS. BOMBAY NATIONAL GENERAL WORKERS UNION [LAWS(BOM)-1983-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KESHRICHAND FULADI AND GIRDHAR S O LAXMAN BUNDELE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AKOLA [LAWS(BOM)-1984-9-39] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY CONSULTANTS VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2004-2-67] [REFERRED TO]
TEHSIL BAR ASSOCIATION, SADAR TEHSIL PARISAR VS. U.P. POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(ALL)-2023-8-4] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS petition raises an interesting and an important point of interpretation, under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. This Act has been made applicable to Vidarbha region by the Extension and Amendment Act 1960, applying the provision of this Act all over the State of Maharashtra.
(2.)THE petitioner, Shri S. N. Kherdekar, is a Advocate of this Court, and also the elected Secretary of the High Court Bar Association at Nag-pur. The Association is a body registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner has been practising for the last 27 years in the High Court and also enrolled under the Legal Practitioners Act and now under the new Advocates Act, 1961.
(3.)THE petitioner has stated that he is practising at his own residence and does not maintain an establishment. He carries on profession by receiving briefs at his house. He has a clerk who looks after the Court work. The clerk is a registered clerk under the rules of the High Court. The petitioner is governed by the Legal Practitioners Act and the Advocates Act. The petitioner, it is claimed, is also an officer of the Court, and is not running any firm or business, or organising any commercial establishment.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.