SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(MP) 348

A.K.MATHUR, DIPAK MISRA
SHIV NARAYAN – Appellant
Versus
M. P. ELECTRICITY BOARD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.K.DIXIT, M.L.JAISWAL

A. K. MATHUR, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners have by this petition raised a very interesting question whether the legal profession is a commercial activity or it is a trade or business. Before we attempt to answer this question, it would be relevant to dilate few facts. Petitioner No. 2 G. D. Padrah is an Advocate and the petitioner No. 1 Shiv Narayan is landlord of the House No. 403 Gol Bazar, Jabalpur. Petitioner No. 2 G. D. Padrah, Advocate lives at first floor as a tenant. The petitioner No. 2 occupied the upper floor premises up to 1981 and was living in the said house and also maintained his office as an Advocate. Thereafter he shifted in his own house but maintained his office in the said tenanted premises. There is an electric service line in that house and it is in the name of the petitioner No. 1 and he is paying the domestic charges. On 17-1-1986, some officer of the MPEB (M. P. Electricity Board) inspected the service meter and served a notice to the petitioner No. 1 that he is using the service connection for commercial purposes instead of domestic purposes. Annexure B is the copy of notice. The petitioner No. 1 replied to the notice that he never used the premises for co















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top