BINNY LTD. AND ANOTHER v. V.SADASIVAN AND OTHERS

6 SCC 657Reported decision2005#25477 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing BINNY LTD. AND ANOTHER v. V.SADASIVAN AND OTHERS

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANJAY CHHABRA

ITA/31/2021HC Rajasthan06 May 2022

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

…summarised the applicable legal principles holding inter alia that- (i) employment contracts of a private nature do not attract public law remedies; (ii) where a contract provides for 21(1979) 4 SCC 160 22(2005) 6 SCC 657 232012 SCC OnLine Del 4019 Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:16.07.2025 15:18:52 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Signature Not Verified 19 termination by notice, only monetary compensation limited to the notice period is recoverable in law; and (iii) under Section 14 of SRA, determinable contracts are statutorily ex…

MS JAYSHREE GURURAJ vs. CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED

WP/19726/2015HC Karnataka06 Oct 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B.S.Patil W.P.No.19726/2015 (S-Dis) Between: Ms.Jayshree Gururaj, D/O. H.S.Gururaja Rao, Aged About 45 Years, Residing At 341, Adarsh Palm Retreat, Bellandur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 013.

Section 23

…he case of FEDERAL BANK LTD. Vs. SAGAR THOMAS – (2003) 10 SCC 733 and WP 19726/2015 26 BINNY LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. V.SADASIVAN AND OTHERS – (2005) 6 SCC 657. 38. The Apex Court in BINNY LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. V.SADASIVAN AND OTHERS – (2005) 6 SCC 657 has held that principles of judicial review cannot be applied in the matter of employment of employees by private bodies on the basis of contracts entered into between them, unless a public law element is involved and hence, in such cases, redressal has to be sought under civil law or under labour laws. The Apex Court while dealing with the…

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1160/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: : Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle 12(1) Vs. M/S.Menzies Aviation Bobba Bangalore. (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecm6862D (Appellant) (Respondent) M.P.No.19/Bang/2014 Arising Out Of Ita No.1160/Bang/2012 - Assessment Year 2009-10 M/S.Menzies Aviation Acit, Circle 12(1) Bobba (Bangalore) Pvt. Vs. Bangalore. Ltd. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecm6862D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Mr. Farahat Hussain Qureshi For Assessee : Mr. V. Srinivasan Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2015 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-Iii, Bangalore, Dated 11.06.2012 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2

For Appellant: Mr. V. SrinivasanFor Respondent: Mr. Farahat Hussain Qureshi

Section 80I

…ic functions even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under the ordinary law but also under the Constitution by way of a writ petition under Article 226.” Lastly referring to the case of BINNY LTD. vs. SADASIVAH reported in (2005) 6 SCC 657 para 11 reported in (2005) 4 SCC 649 @ 682 para 33 it has held that ‘Article 226 is couched in such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a private authority… discharging a public function….A body is performing a ‘public function’ when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public and is…