Mumbai Court August 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lalchand Mengraj and ors. Vs. Shree Ram Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1967
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas606(Bom)
1. This is an interim application pending the disposal of an application under section 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, which is itself for an interim order on a substantive petition by the petitioners under sections 397 and 398 of the said Act. 2. The facts necessary for the purpose of this application are that the shares in the 1st respondent-company are held by two groups, namely, the Bhogilal group and his associates who hold the majority of as much as about 69 per cent. of the paid up capital of the company which stands at present at the figure of Rs. 99,60,000, and the Menghraj group and his associates who constitute the minority group holding the remaining shares. The three petitioners and the 8th respondent belong to the said minority group of shareholders, the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to the majority group of shareholders. It may be mentioned that the 3rd petitioner and the 8th respondent were, at the material time, directors of the 1st respondent-company along with respondents ...
Bibi Batool and ors. Vs. the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1972Bom254; (1972)74BOMLR22
Mody, J.1. Orders of eviction have been passed against the petitioners in these three petitions in respect of 'corporation premises' under the special provisions contained in Chap. V - A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The petitioners in two of the three petitions have filed their petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner in the third petition has filed its petition under Art. 226 challenging the validity of the order of eviction passed against each of them. Various grounds have been taken in each of the three petitions in support of the challenge, but all the three petitions raise one common question which is a question of law. The common question is whether the provisions of Chapter V - A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, and particularly Section 105 - B thereof, violate Arts. 14 and 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution and are therefore void. Counsel in all the three petitions stated that they were agreed that the above question ...
Asia Publishing House Vs. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1967
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR777
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed in Chambers by Mr. Justice K. K. Desai on October 10, 1966, dismissing a petition filed by the appellants to set aside an award made on May 4, 1966, by Mr. P. P. Khambatta, a senior advocate of this Court.2. The circumstances under which the appeal arises may be briefly stated as follows; The appellants are the Asia Publishing House and P. S. Jayasinghe. Appellant No. 1 is merely the trade name of appellant No. 2 who is the sole proprietor of the business of Asia Publishing House. The respondents John Wiley & Sons, Inc. are a corporation registered in the State of New York in the United States of America. They carry on the business of publishers and they have appeared throughout by a constituted attorney in all these proceedings.3. On October 1, 1956, the appellants and the respondents entered into an agreement exh. A whereby the appellants were appointed publishers of certain books or titles as they have been referred to in...
Santeline Fernandes (Through Margarida Gomes) Vs. Mackinnon Mackenzie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ189Bom; 1968MhLJ292
1. One Santoline Fernandes was employed by the opponents, Mackinnon Mackerzie & Co. (Private), Ltd., on their vessel m. v. 'Pundua' on 4 May, 1960. In the course of his employment, he suffered, while removing certain articles in the store-room of the ship, injury to his eyes by chilly powder. He washed his eyes and to some extent he felt some relief. But in about four to five days' time, a film developed in the eyes. The chief officer had no medicine for the eyes. At Kobe in Japan, the master of the ship took him to a Japanese doctor. At Ure, he was taken to a hospital. From there when the ship reached Yokohama he was taken to a hospital and an operation was performed. The petitioner remained in the hospital for six days. He was then transferred to a cargo ship S. S. 'Umaria' belonging to the respondents and brought to Bombay. He then gave notice of the accident because permanent defects developed in his eyes and then he made the application for award of compensation against the respon...
Margarida Gomes and anr. Vs. Mackinnor Mackenzie and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom328; (1968)70BOMLR62
Patel, J. (1) One Santo line Fernandes was employed by the Opponents M/s. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Private Ltd., on their vessel 'm. v. Pandua' on May 4, 1960. In the course of his employment, he suffered, while removing certain articles in the store-room of the ship injury to his eyes by chilly powder. He washed his eyes and to some extent his felt some relief. But in about 4 to 5 days' time a film developed in the eyes The Chief Officer had no medicine for the eyes. At Kobe in Japan, the master of the ship took him to a Japanese doctor. At Ure he was taken to a hospital. From there when, the ship reached Yokohoma he was taken to a hospital and an operation was performed. The petitioner remained in the hospital for six days. He was then transferred to a cargo ship 's. s. Umaria' belonging to the respondents and brought to Bombay. He then gave notice of the accident because permanent defects developed in his eyes and then he made the application for award of compensation against the...
Udhav Shankar Gangawane and ors. Vs. Tarabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom308; (1967)69BOMLR795; 1968MhLJ87
(1) This second appeal raises a question of interpretation of section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. (2) Sakharam and Sitabai were the father and mother respectively of Govind and Shankar. Sakharam died in 1945 and Govind a few days after him, leaving widows Anusayabai and Kamalabai, defendants 2 and 3 and daughter Tarabai, defendant No. 1. These three filed a suit for partition against Sitabai and Shankar and a decree was passed. Sitabai was awarded in lieu of her one-third share postal cash certificates of the value of Rs. 10,000/- for her enjoyment for her lifetime. After her death, the corpus was to go to Shankar. Sitabai died on March 22, 1958. After her death, Shankar obtained succession certificate in respect of the certificates but he was required to furnish security for safeguarding the share of Anusayabai and Tarabai if any in the said amount. The heirs of Shankar filed the suit for declaration of their title contending that the share certificates were of the exclus...
State Vs. Bhimshankar Siddannapppa Thobde and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom254; (1967)69BOMLR788; 1968CriLJ898
Tarkunde, J.1. A somewhat intriguing question of law has arisen in this appeal. The question relates to the application of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to a case where one of the offenders acts in excess of the common intention of all the offenders.(2) The three appellants who have filed this appeal were accused Nos. 1 to 3 in a trial conducted by the Sessions Judge of Sholapur. Two charges were framed against them. One charge was under section 323 and 324 read with section 34 I. P. C. for having caused simple hurt to four persons including witnesses Yogappa and Shivshankar Bhogade. The other charge was under Section 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. for having attempted the murder of witness Sidramappa. The learned trial Judge found the three accused guilty of both the charges. For the offence under sections 323 and 324 read with section 34 I.P.C he sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence under section 307 read with section 34 I. P. C. he sen...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›