Mumbai Court October 1966 Judgments
National Union of Commercial Employees Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1966
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ169Bom
1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the decision of the State of Maharashtra, being respondent 1 herein, contained in the letters dated 25 September, 1965 (Ex. M to the petition) and 6 November, 1965 (Ex. O to the petition), whereby respondent 1 refused to refer the dispute between respondent 2 and the workmen employed in it at its head office at Bombay. 2. The relevant facts that are not in dispute shortly stated are : Respondents 2 are a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its sugar factory at Harigaon and its head office at Bombay. Respondent 2 has more than 4,000 workers employed at its factory at Harigaon and have about 21 employees working at its head office at Bombay. There are two unions of workers - one representing the workers employed at respondent 2's factory at Harigaon and the other representing the staff employed at respondent 2's head office establishment at Bombay. The union representing the workers employed at the factory at ...
Tag this Judgment!The Superintendent of Stamps and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom369; (1967)69BOMLR320; 1967MhLJ641
Kotwal, C.J. (1) This is a reference under Section 54(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The reference arises under the following circumstances. Four persons namely Govind Parmeshwar Nair, his wife Kartika P. Nair and his two daughters Mrs. Prakashini Govind Kutty Menon and Miss Hayashree Parameshwar Nair purchased a building known as 'Nair Mahal' at Tulsipipe Road, Mahim, Bombay, on 30th March, 1960, for a sum of Rs, 2,50,000. On the next dau 31st March 1960 they declared a trust of the said property by a document intituled 'Declaration of Trust' and executed by the said four settlors. The proper stamp duty payable upon this document is that subject-matter of this reference.(2) The preamble recites that the settlors had purchased the property with the express desire of declaring a trust thereof subject to the powers and provisions mentioned in the document. It also recites that the settlors already 'stand seized , possessed of the said heredita...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Annapurnabai Vs. Court of Wards Through the Collector, Nagpur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom394; (1967)69BOMLR490; 1967MhLJ450
Abhyankar, J. (1) The appellant, the original plaintiff Rani Annapurnabai is widow of Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao Bhonsle. In this appeal, she has challenged the dismissal of her suit by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on the ground that the suit was filed in villation of the provisions of Sections 27 and 30 of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, i.e. Act No. XXIV of 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Court of Wards Act).(2) Certain facts leading to this litigation may be stated to appreciate the rival contentions between the parties.(3) In paragraph 1 of the plaint (Ex.1), the appellant has given a genealogical table of the family of the late Shri Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao Bhonsle. The genealogy is as follows:-Rani Gojara Bai = Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao = Rani Annapurna Bai (Plaintiff) \________________________\___________\_______________ Raje Bahadur Fattesingh Rao Kunwar Jaisingh Rao(Defendant No.2) (Defendant No. 5)____________\_________________________ Kunwar Ajitsingh...
Tag this Judgment!National Union of Commercial Employees and ors. Vs. State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom316; (1968)70BOMLR52; (1968)IILLJ169Bom
(1) By this petition, the petitioners challenge the decision of the State of Maharashtra, being the first respondent herein, contained in the letters dated 25th September 1965 (Ex. 'M' to the petition) and 6th November 1965 (Ex 'O' to the petition), whereby the first respondent refused to refer the dispute between the second respondent and the workmen employed in it at its head office at Bombay. (2) The relevant facts that are not in dispute shortly, stated are: The second respondents are a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its sugar factory at Harigaon and its head office at Bombay. The second respondents have more than 4000 workers employed at its factory at Harigaon and have about 21 employees working at its head office at Bombay. There are two Union of workers-One representing the workers employed at the second respondents' factory at Harigaon and the other representing the staff employed at the 2nd respondents' head office establishment at Bombay....
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Totaram Patel Vs. Mahipat Mahadu Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom408; (1967)69BOMLR282; 1967MhLJ522
Kotval, C.J.(1) This revision application was referred first to a Division Bench by Mr. Justice Chandrachud and the Division Bench referred it to a Full Bench, because they found that there was some conflict between two decisions of two Division Benches on the question as to the proper construction of Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act read with Section 85 thereof.(2) The matter arose out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs alleging that the plaintiffs and the sole defendant were co-tenants of a field bearing Survey No. 139, but on 20-6-1962 the defendant obstructed the plaintiffs' cultivation contending that he had been declared the purchaser of the field by the Tenancy Court after the tiller's day under the said Act. The plaintiffs' case was that the decision to declare the defendant as the purchaser tenant was taken behind their back and without hearing them, and that they should have been declared the purchasers along with the defendant. The plaintiffs all...
Tag this Judgment!Ranu Thaku Kokate Vs. Santu Goga Bhangare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom1; (1967)69BOMLR463; 1967MhLJ844
Kotval, C.J. (1) This second appeal has been referred for decision to the Full Bench as it involves an important question as to the scope and effect of sections 2 and 3 of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act XVIII of 1937 as amended by Act XI of 1938. The facts upon which the questions arise fall within a narrow compass. One Yesu had two sons; Pandu and Goga. Pandu had a wife Dhondi and two daughters Jani and Patri. Pandu died in 1939 leaving behind his widow Dhondi, two daughters Jani and Patri and a widow of his predeceased son Sakharam. The name of the widow of the predeceased son does not appear on the record before us. Goga had two sons Santu and Bahiru. On 24th March 1939 a partition took place between Goga and Dhondi, the widow of his brother Pandu, and by that partition Dhondi was given the agricultural lands which were the subject-matter of the suit. They are lands admeasuring in all 21 acres and 11 1/2 gunthas. It appears that on the same day that the partition took plac...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Krishnarao Dhote Vs. Dean, Medical College
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1966
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR603; 1967MhLJ915
Abhyankar, J.1. As these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise one common question of considerable importance in the matter of admissions to Government educational institutions, we propose' to dispose of both these petitions by common order.2. Special Civil Application No. 813 of 1966 is at the instance of Shri Ashok Krishnarao Dhote. To his petition, the Dean, Medical College, Nagpur and the State of Maharashtra have been impleaded as respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Besides them, are also impleaded respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, Shri S.W. Korpe, Shri M.V. Mahajan, Shri V.L. Bonde and Shri V.Y. Dhote respectively, who, according to the petitioner, have been admitted to the Medical College at Nagpur after the petitioner was included in a provisional list of students eligible to be admitted. Petitioner Dhote's case its that he is a student belonging to the backward class. He passed B. Sc. Part I Examination of the Nagpur University in June 1966 which is a qualifying1 Exami...
Tag this Judgment!L.R. Melwani Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1966
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR421
Naik, J.1. This application is directed against the order passed by the Presidency Magistrate, 26th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, in Case No. 132/W of 3965 rejecting certain prayers made on behalf of the petitioners, who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in that case. The Assistant Collector of Customs of the Appraising Department, Bombay, filed a complaint against five persons including the petitioners (who will hereafter be referred to as accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, read with Clauses (57), (75), (76) and (81) of Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act of 1947 and also under Section 167(57) and Section 167(75) and 167(75) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The material facts as disclosed by the complaint may be set out as follows: Four consignments bearing marks (V.I.P.) were imported by accused No. 3 on behalf of the company by name M/s, Champaklal Ananthram which reached Bombay harbour on December 15...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanthilal Purshottamdas Patel Vs. Gordhandas Desai Private Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1966
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas405(Bom)
ORDER1. This is a petition under section 155 of the Companies Act for an order against the 1st respondent-company hereinafter referred to as 'the company' to rectify the register of members of the company in respect of two fully paid up equity shares Nos. 4999 and 5000 by inserting the name of the petitioner therein as the holder of the shares and for consequential orders. * * * *2. The petitioner's case under section 155 is that his name as a shareholder in respect of the above two shares have been without any authority and illegally transferred from his name to the name of the second respondent. The register of members of the company is accordingly liable to be rectified as prayed for ....... * * * *3. The respondents contend ..... that the petitioner has filed this petition after great delay. 4. They further contend that it was unnecessary to have any transfer forms signed by the petitioner lodged with the company in connection with the transfer of shares ..... 'No application or au...
Tag this Judgment!L.M. Mahurkar and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Circle Ii, Nagpur and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1966
Reported in: [1967]66ITR561(Bom); [1967]20STC199(Bom)
Abhyankar, J. 1. This order will dispose off both these applications as they raise common questions regarding powers of the State Government in prescribing a particular form for appearance of sales tax practitioners and others before sales tax authority and the amount of fees required to be paid on the document authorising such appearance. 2. Special Civil Application No. 1102 of 1965 is at the instance of Shri L. M. Mahurkar, who is a sales tax practitioner. He appeared before the first respondent, i.e., Sales Tax Officer, Circle No. 2, Nagpur, in two assessment cases of his client and filed two powers-of-attorney, of which document No. 2 at page 10 of the paper-book is a specimen. He had affixed a court-fee stamp of Rs. 2 on each of these powers-of-attorney as provided by the Bombay Court-fees Act. The first respondent recorded in his order sheet of 8th November, 1965, that the powers-of-attorney filed by the petitioner were not in the prescribed form and directed the petitioner to f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »