Mumbai Court April 1968 Judgments
In Re: New Kaiser-i-hind Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1968
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas701(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. These are all appeals arising out of several proceedings taken in the winding up of a limited joint stock company known as the New Kaiser-I-Hind Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd., Bombay, which was engaged in the business of running a cotton mill. The appeals raise common questions of fact and law and the principal parties thereto are also common and were represented by the same counsel. It will be convenient therefore to dispose of all the appeals by one common order. 2. This company was at one time being run by a management which for the sake of convenience and brevity we shall call the J.K. group or as it is called in the judgment of the court below in Appeal No. 98 of 1967 as the Singhania group. On 21st June, 1965, a petition for winding up of the company was filed being Petition No. 39 of 1965 by a concern named Indualal and Co. and by an order of this court a provisional liquidator was appointed, who took charge of the company on the 2nd August, 1965. In consequence th...
Tag this Judgment!Keshub Mahindra and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1968
Reported in: [1968]70ITR1(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. The following questions have been referred for our decision : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts representing the value of right shares renounced in favour of Willys were chargeable as gifts within the meaning of section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act as being without consideration in money or money's worth (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether the amounts in question were exempt from Gift-tax under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act ?' 2. The reference has been made in regard to three assessees who are brothers, namely, Keshub Mahindra, Suresh Mahindra and Harish Mahindra (hereinafter referred to as the Mahindras or Mahindra brothers or the assessees). The facts and the questions of law involved in regard to each assessee are the same and were also decided before the Tribunal by one order. The year of assessment is 1959-60 and the corresponding previous year is the year ended 31st March, 1959. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Velayudhan Kuttapan Nair Vs. S.K. Bedekar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom315; (1968)70BOMLR563; 1968MhLJ712
Tarkunde, J.1. This appeal arises from a Judgment of Mr. Justice K. K. Desai dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution. We have heard this appeal for some time, but we find that it would not be possible to complete the hearing and to dispose of the appeal before the commencement of the summer vacation. We have, however, heard counsel on a preliminary issue which was raised on behalf of the respondents and we are confining this judgment to the decision on that issue.2. The Petitioner-appellant was in the service of the Central Government and was working as a Weighment Clerk in the office of the Regional Director (Food), Western Region, Bombay. On the allegation that he had actively participated in a general strike of employees of the Central Government which commenced on 12th July 1960, a departmental inquiry was instituted against him and he was dismissed from service by the first respondent, the Regional Director (Food), Western Region, on 1st ...
Tag this Judgment!The Belapur Company Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR856
Nain, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It arises from an order dated September 30, 1966, passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Ceilings), taluka Shairampur, district Ahmednagar, under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the Act). The order has been made under Rule 8(1) of tie Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Rules, 1962. The order is for taking possession of the land delimited as surplus land under Notification No. Ceiling 83/68 dated March 1, 1963, issued under Section 21(2) of the Act. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction for withdrawing or cancelling the said order and calling upon the respondents to forbear from taking possession of the lands covered by the said order and for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to notify the said lands as exempt lands under Section 47(1)(fe) of th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna S. Gokavi Vs. Doiphode (S.R.) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ80Bom
1. The petitioner, Krishna S. Gokavi, has filed this petition to challenge the validity of an order made by respondent 1, the additional authority under the Payment of Wages Act, rejecting the application of the petitioner in respect of certain claim for bonus and leave wages. 2. The petitioner is an employee of respondent 2, United Works (Private), Ltd. Respondent 2 declared bonus for the year 1965-66 for the workmen. The petitioner claimed that on this basis he is entitled to bonus amounting to Rs. 260. Respondent 1 in his order dated 8 September, 1967 has found that the petitioner is entitled to bonus amounting to Rs. 207 55; the petitioner was also entitled to leave wages amounting to Rs. 87.50. The petitioner made a claim for bonus and leave wages and filed an application on 3 February, 1967 before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. 3. The case of respondent 2 before the authority was that the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs. 207.50 as and by way of bonus and Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Runjaji Suryabhanji and ors. Vs. Manjurabai Urkudaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom319; (1969)71BOMLR129; ILR1969Bom826; 1969MhLJ53
ORDER1. The fields involved in this case are Survey Nos. 77/1, area 12 acres 10 gunthas, 34/1, area 1 acres 20 gunthas and 17/3, area 8 acres 20 gunthas of mouza Kushta Buzruk, taluq Achalpur, District Amravati. In Survey Nos. 34/1 and 17/3 Suryabhan alone was recorded as the joint tenants. In survey Nos. 34/1 and 17/3 Suryabhan died on 3-5-1962, Suryabhan had three sons Runjaji, Punjaji and Urkuda and a wife Bhagirathi and two daughters whose names have not come on record anyway. Urkuda, one of the sons of Suryabhan, predeceased him having died in the year 1957. Urkuda left behind him a widow Manjurabai and son Nagorao.2. On the death of Suryabhan the widow and son of Urkuda, namely, Manjurabai and Nagorao, the respondents 1 and 2 to the present petition, made an application under Section 36 read with Section 33 of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1958, by which they claimed that they be put in joint possession of the fields in question or the fields may be partitioned a...
Tag this Judgment!Deoram Mangalram Vs. Nandan Shivram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR529; 1969MhLJ552
Chandurkar, J.1. This is a second appeal by the legal representative of a decree-holder whose application for execution of the decree obtained by his father against the respondents has been rejected by both the Courts below as barred by limitation.2. Facts which are necessary to appreciate the dispute between the parties are that in Civil Suit No. 30 of 1956 one Mangalram obtained an ex parte decree against the defendants-respondents, on February 14, 1957 in the Court of the Small Causes, Amravati. After the decree, the decree-holder died on August 30, 1957. On December 3, 1958, the appellant, who is the son of the deceased decree-holder, filed an application purporting to be one under Order XXI, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code before the executing Court below and the prayer in that application was that 'his: name may kindly be allowed to be substituted in place of the decree-holder and he be kindly allowed to execute the decree... '. A notice of this application was issued to the judgme...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Parameswaran Vs. the Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR292; 1969MhLJ500
Patel, J.1. These four petitions arise out of the orders made by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, acting as the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the Minimum Wages Act at Nandgaon, District Nasik, Special Civil Application No. 454 of 1968 arises out of original Application No. 2 of 1964; No. 455 of 1968 arises out of original Application No. 3 of 1964; No. 456 of 1968 arises out of the original Application No. 1 of 1965 and No. 457 of 1968t arises out of original Application No. 2 of 1965. These applications were filed by the workers of the 'Central Railway administration, Bhusaval Division. Applications Nos. 2 and 3 of 1964 were filed by 382 workers, the claim in Application No. 2 being for the period from April 1, 1952 to February 29, 1964, while the claim in Application No. 3 for the period from May 1, 3964 to October 31, 1964. Application No. 1 of 1965 was filed by 319 other workers, the claim being for the period from April 1, 1952 to July 31, 1964 and Applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Shapoorji Nusserwanji and Co. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1968
Reported in: [1971(22)FLR110]; (1968)IILLJ739Bom; 1969MhLJ361
Patel, J. 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks to have the order made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner quashed. The said order is made under S. 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952), and calls upon the petitioner-firm to pay the sums of Rs. 54,275 and Rs. 1,261 into his office. 2. The petitioner-firm is a partnership doing motor transport business. The Central Government framed a scheme under the said Act called the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). It issued a notification under S. 1(3)(b) of the Act of 1952 and applied the said scheme to road motor transport establishments from 30 April, 1959. Respondent 2 intimated to the petitioner by the letter dated 24 May, 1966, that the petitioner's establishment fulfilled the conditions for the application of the scheme with effect from 31 July, 1961; that code No. MB/6949 was allotted to it and that it should implement the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Manoramabai Moreshwar and ors. Vs. Ibrahim Khan Bismilla Khan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom366; (1969)71BOMLR317; ILR1969Bom232; 1969MhLJ219
1. The appellants are legal representatives of the original plaintiff who died during the pendency of this appeal. He had filed a suit against the defendants respondents for recovery of Rs 130.00 on account of compensation for illegal seizure of his cattle by the defendants on 23rd August 1958.2. The allegation was that the plaintiff's cattle were grazing in an uncultivated portion of field Khasra No. 50, area 6.98 acres of Village Singori, which was owned by the plaintiff , but the defendants, with a view to cause wrongful loss and damage to the plaintiff, trespassed into his field and drove away 17 head of cattle and impounded them in the cattle-pound at mouza Parseoni. These cattle had to be released by paying poundage fee Rs. 74-4-0 and an additional amount of Rs. 50 was claimed as loss sustained because the animals were not available for cultivation for a day and Rs. 5-12-0 were claimed on account of the value of 12 seers of milk which was lost to the plaintiff. This suit was brou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »