Mumbai Court April 1971 Judgments
Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Divisional ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Bom365
Padhye, J.1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 having its registered office at Nagpur. It does banking business and is known as a Central Co-operative Bank within the meaning of that expression used in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The primary object of this Society is to finance the other Co-operative Societies in the district and is now covered by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as amended by the. Banking Laws (Application to Co-operative Societies) Act, 1965 and has been granted a licence under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The sole business of the petitioner-Society is that of banking that is to accept deposits from the public and lend the money to the Co-operative Societies in the district and to invest the deposits in other spheres. 2. The petitioner Society has framed its bye-laws according to which the Board of Directors of the Society consists of not more than 23 members and is entrusted wit...
Tag this Judgment!Shreekunwardevi Daga Vs. L.G. Trivedi, Income-tax Officer, A-ward, War ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR451(Bom); 1971MhLJ729
Padhye, J.1. These two petitions raise common question of law and are dealt with together. These petitions challenge the orders of assessments for the assessment year 1962-63, i.e., account year ending Diwali 1961, and the consequent notices of demand of income-tax dated February 13, 1967. The liability of the petitioners in both the petitions arises on account of their being partners in the firm known as M/s. R. B. Bansilal Abirchand and their minor children being admitted to the benefits of the partnership. 2. Hiralal Daga, husband of the petitioner, Shreekunwardevi, was a partner, holding 1/7th share and Dwarkadas Daga, husband of the petitioner, Radhadevi, was a partner, holding 1/7th share in the partnership firm, M/s. R. B. Bansilal Abirchand, constituted under the partnership deed, dated May 15, 1955. It is alleged in both the petitions that there was an understanding between the parties that the death of a partner will not dissolve the partnership but the partnership business w...
Tag this Judgment!Jaikumar Shivlal Shah and ors. Vs. Motilal Hirachand Gandhi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Bom27; (1972)74BOMLR174; ILR1972Bom816; 1972MhLJ405
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Osmanabad, in Civil Appeal No.34 of 1968 arising out of the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge Osmanabad, in Civil Suit No. 52/1 of 1955.2. The predecessor of the respondents one Hirachand Amichand filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 5250/- O.S. on the basis of a pro-note dated 6th December 1952 alleged to have been executed by one Shivial Raoji, the predecessor of the present appellants. The original defendant contested the claim denying both the execution and consideration of the pro-note. He also contended that the so-called pro-note was a money bend and the same being not duly stamped, it was inadmissible in evidence. The plaintiff filed his rejoinder rebutting the contentions raised by the defendant and giving the history and the details of the consideration. The rest of the contentions, are not material for our purpose. The learned trial Judge, on the evidence placed before him by the partie...
Tag this Judgment!Sarubai Vs. Vinayak Govind Chandrate and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1971
Reported in: 1972MhLJ563
ORDER1. The above petition is filed by a tenant against whom his landlord, respondent No.1, had filed an application under Section 33-B read with Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, after obtaining a certificate under Section 88-C. The application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the landlord had already obtained from him half the land originally leased to him for personal cultivation upon a surrender under Section 15 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, and hence in view of the provisions of Section 33-B (5) (a) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, the landlord was not entitled to recover possession of the remaining half of the land, which is the subject-matter of the dispute between him and the landlord now. The Tenancy Ayal Karkun, Dinfori, who heard the application not only against the petitioner but also against the other tenants, while granting an order in favour of the landlord against other tenants, did not restore possession of half land out of ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Rachu Kanadi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1971
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR891; 1972MhLJ191
Vimadalal, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 'who have been convicted, by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay, oil offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Section 161 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case is that accused No. 1 was, at the material time which would be January 17, 1968, working as a Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as E.P.F.) on probation, and accused Nos. 2 and 3 were Rakshaks in the R.P.F. under him, whilst accused No. 4 was a head-rakshak working under him, all of them being at the material time posted at Bimsaval railway station. The prosecution case is that Shivaji Ogale was a merchant dealing in timber and Shahabad stones at Bhusaval, and a wagon load of Shahabad stones ordered out by him arrived at Bhusaval railway station on January 16, 1968. Some of the goods were unloaded and removed by Shiva...
Tag this Judgment!Chandulal and Co. Vs. Nihalchand Pannaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom299; (1972)74BOMLR142; ILR1972Bom811; 1972MhLJ329
1. This is judgment - debtors' appeal against the dismissal of their chamber summons for setting aside the attachment levied under warrant of attachment dated 14-1-1970. The relevant facts are as follows :-2.On the summons for judgment taken out by the plaintiff, a decree on admission for Rs. 4,529.74 and interest and costs was made against the judgment - debtors. The decree was made payable by monthly instalments of Rupees 200/- with a direction that the first of such instalments be paid on September 23, 1968 and the subsequent instalments on or before the 23rd of each succeeding month. The decree provided that in default of payment of any two instalments the whole of the decretal balance then due should become payable and accordingly the plaintiff should be at liberty to apply for recovery of the outstanding balance by execution of the decree.3.Admittedly, the debtors made first default in payment of Rs. 200/- payable on September 23, 1969. The Second default was alleged to have take...
Tag this Judgment!Arthur and Co. Vs. Shamji Kalidas and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom345; (1972)74BOMLR280
Mody, J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and Order of Madon, J. dated 26th February 1968 granting the respondents' application and directing that the Contract dated 9th December 1964 between the appellants and the respondents be filed in Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and that all disputes arising between the parties, including the claim of the respondents against the appellants under and in respect of the said contract be referred to arbitration according to the bye-laws of the East India Cotton Association Ltd. so that the necessary steps under the said bye-laws may be taken to have the said disputes settled by arbitration as provided by the said bye-laws, the East India Cotton Association Ltd. is hereinafter referred to as 'E. I. C.A. Ltd.'.2.By that Contract the respondents agreed to sell to the appellants and the appellant agreed to buy from the respondents 200 bales if Egyptian cotton to be shipped during January / February 1965 on certain terms and ...
Tag this Judgment!Devidas Narayan Kango Vs. Brijlal Lakdu Bhavsar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Bom72; (1972)74BOMLR110; ILR1972Bom800; 1972MhLJ315
1. The order of the Insolvency Court on Miscellaneous Application No. 114 of 1966 dated April 10, 1968, and the appellate order of the Extra Assistant Judge, Jalgaon, dated August 29, 1970, disclose pathetic ignorance of both the Courts about the objects and purposes of the law of insolvency and particularly the provisions therein in connection with discharge of insolvents and realisation and collection of assets of an insolvent by appointment of a receiver.2. One Brijlal Bhavsar and his son Bhagwand Sudhakar carried on business as members of a joint and undivided Hindu family. On February 12, 1964, these three persons applied for an order of their own adjudication as insolvents on the ground that they were unable to pay and discharge their debts having suffered heavy losses in business. One of the debts mentioned in the insolvency petition was of Rs. 1,200/- due to the creditor Devidas Narayan Kango. An order of adjudication was made on January 7, 1965. The order provided that the deb...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Investment and Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. New Shorrock Spinning ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1971
Reported in: [1972]42CompCas145(Bom)
Nain, J. 1. This is a petition under the provisions of sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Companies Act'), for sanctioning of a scheme for the amalgamation of the M.G. Investment & Industrial Company Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the petitioner company') with the New Shorrock Spinning and . (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-company'). The object of the petition is to obtain the sanction of this court to a scheme of amalgamation whereby the petitioner-company as transferor is to be amalgamated with the respondent-company as transferee. The respondent-company has its registered office at Ahmedabad. It has filed a petition under the provisions of sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, being Petition No. 3 of 1971 in the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad on 25th January, 1971, for sanctioning of the same scheme of amalgamation. The said petition is pending. The respondent-company has appeared before me and supported this pet...
Tag this Judgment!Sohanraj Ganeshmal Shah Vs. Gulabrao B. Kate and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom377; (1972)74BOMLR107; ILR1972Bom792; 1972MhLJ373
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the original plaintiff from the order dated October 22, 1970, dismissing the plaintiff's application for attachment before judgment and directing that the surety Namdeo Laxman Bibave was not liable for payment of the amount due to the plaintiff under the surety bond dated July 25, 1969, and that the surety stood discharged.2.Mr. Abhyankar for the plaintiff has contended that the learned Judge erred in thinking that the application Ex. 4 for an order of attachment before judgment had not been already disposed of completely by the prior order dated July 24, 1969, and by the execution of the surety bond dated July 25, 1969, in pursuance of the above prior order dated July 24, 1969. The impugned order has been made on the wrong footing that the application Ex. 4 for order of attachment before judgment had still remained outstanding for disposal. The order is entirely misconceived and not sustainable. Mr. Shinde for the surety Namdeo Laxman Bibave has denie...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »