TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Lawyer's office not 'commercial establishment' under Kerala Act</h1> <h3>V. Sasidharan Versus Peter & Karunakar</h3> The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave appeal, affirming that a lawyer's office or a firm of lawyers does not qualify as a 'commercial ... - Issues involved: The issue involved in this case is whether a firm of lawyers can be considered a 'commercial establishment' as per the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960.Judgment Details:The appellant, who was a clerk in a firm of lawyers, had his services terminated by the firm. The Appellate Authority upheld the firm's objection that it was not a commercial establishment. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala, which was dismissed. The subsequent appeal was also dismissed, leading to this special leave appeal before the Supreme Court.The definition of 'commercial establishment' under section 2(4) of the Act includes various types of establishments such as commercial, industrial, trading, banking, or insurance establishments, among others. It also specifies that a commercial establishment does not include a factory to which the Factories Act, 1948 applies.The Court analyzed the definitions provided in the Act and concluded that a lawyer's office or the office of a firm of lawyers does not fall under the definition of a 'commercial establishment.' The Act's provisions related to registration, hours of work, holidays, wages, employment of children and women, and health and safety measures further support this conclusion.The Court rejected the argument that a lawyer's office could be considered a commercial establishment based on the employees mainly engaging in office work. It emphasized that a lawyer's office is not an 'administrative service' as per the Act's definition.The Court distinguished this case from previous judgments related to the definition of 'industry' and 'commercial establishment,' highlighting the specific context of this appeal. It also referred to a case involving the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry to illustrate the wide scope of the term 'commercial establishment' in a different context.The High Court's reasoning was upheld, and it was held that the office of a lawyer or a firm of lawyers does not qualify as a 'commercial establishment' under the Act. The Bar Council of Kerala and Clerks Association of the Supreme Court Bar were appreciated for their assistance in the matter.In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.Separate Judgment: There was no separate judgment delivered by the judges in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
