Mumbai Court July 1971 Judgments
Kekhasarao Sorabji Irani Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom357; (1972)74BOMLR271; ILR1972Bom1262; 1972MhLJ649
Vaidya, J. 1. The petitioner Kekhasarao Sorabji Irani was born in Bombay in the year 1922. His father Sorabji Kaikobad Irani came to India from Persia in the year 1902 to assist his sister in the business of running a restaurant in Bombay. Sorabji married in 1913 the petitioner's mother Goharbai in Bombay. He continued his business in Bombay and settled down in India and never went back to his country of origin or went out to any other country till his death in the Sassoon Hospital at Poona. When Sorabji died, the petitioner was 7 months old. The petitioner was educated at Poona and passed his Matriculation examination in the year 1940. After passing the Matriculation examination he studied for a diploma course in Engineering in the Poona Engineering College. In 1944, he obtained a diploma in Mechanical Engineering from the College of Engineering at Poona. Thereafter the petitioner worked in a ammunition factory at Kirkhee, first as a supervisor trainee from May 1944 to November 1944, ...
Tag this Judgment!Laljibhai C. Kapadia Vs. Lalji B. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1971
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas17(Bom)
Bhasme, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and is directed against the judgment and decree passed in the suit filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the appellants and respondent No. 3. The suit was for a permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 3 and its directors, servants and agents from allowing the appellants to act as directors of the respondent No. 3-company. A similar injunction was also claimed against the appellants restraining them from acting in any manner as the directors of the respondent No. 3 - company. 2. Respondent No. 3 is a public limited company registered under the Indian companies Act and carries on business, inter alia, and manufacturer of rayon yarn and has its registered office at Bombay. It is the plaintiffs' case that on April 9, 1969, the board of directors appointed the appellants as additional directors of respondent No. 3-company. The Board of directors consisted at that time of 8 members excluding those additionally appointed ad...
Tag this Judgment!Laljibhai C. Kapadia and anr. Vs. Lalji B. Desai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom276; (1972)74BOMLR85; ILR1972Bom917
1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 3 and is directed against the judgment and decree passed in the suit filed by Respondents 1 and 2 against the appellants and Respondent No. 3. the suit was for a permanent injunction restraining Respondent No. 3 and its directors, servants and agents from allowing the appellants to act as directors of the Respondent No. 3 company. A similar injunction was also claimed against the appellants restraining them from acting in any manner as the directors of the respondent No. 3 company.2. Respondent No. 3 is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act and carries on business, inter alia, as manufacturer of rayon yarn and has its registered office at Bombay. It is the plaintiffs' case that on 9-4-1969 the Board of Directors appointed the appellants as additional directors of Respondent 3 company. The Board of Directors consisted at that time of 8 members excluding these additional appointed directors. The plaintiffs have referre...
Tag this Judgment!P.B. Bhatt and ors. Vs. V.R. Thakkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom365; (1972)74BOMLR509; 1972MhLJ756
ORDER1. Whilst the first plaintiff was being examined in - chief by Mr. Laud and was deposing to an interview between himself and plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 accompanied by a broker named Narayandas Budhwani and the first defendant and one Chandrakant Thakore, he deposed to the terms which were offered by the first defendant in regard to the businesses of Femina Stores and Meghdoot Restaurant which were proposed to be taken by the Plaintiffs under a conducting agreement, along with ac option to purchase the same. The first plaintiff deposed that after those terms were proposed, there was a discussion which went on for about half - hour. The first plaintiff was then put a question, 'what happened then ?' At the stage Mr. Shah on behalf of the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 raised an objection to the effect that in view of the plaintiffs' own case in para 7 of the plaint that the agreement in question had been reduced into writing in the form of annexure 'A' to the Plaint, no oral evidence could be ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshrao Kishanrao Deshmukh Vs. Devsingh Venkatasingh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Bom369; (1972)74BOMLR316; ILR1972Bom978; 1972MhLJ661
Vaidya, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order purporting to be of the Government of Maharashtra communicated to the petitioner's Advocate by an officer of the Government described as the Officer on Special Duty, Revenue and Forest Department in respect of an appeal filed by the petitioner before the Government of Maharashtra under Section 2 - A of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954. By the impugned letter dated February 3, 1967, the Officer on Special Duty informed the petitioner's Advocate that the appeal filed by the petitioner on July 20, 1964 was disposed of as per Government memorandum dated February 2, 1967 and a note accompanying thereto.2. The Government memorandum dated February 2, 1967 is addressed to the Collector of Osmanabad with reference to the appeal filed by the petitioner and proceeds to decide the dispute between the petitioner and opponents Nos. 1 and 2 as to whether opponents Nos. 1 an...
Tag this Judgment!All India Voltas and Volkart Employees' Federation Vs. Voltas Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1971
Reported in: (1972)ILLJ326Bom
S.P. Kotval, C.J. 1. This petition is directed against an award delivered by the National Industrial Tribunal under S. 10(2) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act. The award was made on 19th April, 1968 and published in the Gazette on the 25th of May, 1968. It is concerned with disputes between Messrs Voltas Limited, Bombay and their workmen represented by the All India Voltas and Volkart Employees' Federation, Bombay. The parties had arrived at settlements for referring voluntarily the issue as to bonus for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66 and consequent upon those settlements a reference was made to the Tribunal by two separate orders of Government dated 20th December, 1966 and 17th April, 1967. Originally the references were to Mr. Salim Merchant but were later on transferred to Mr. Kamal Sahai on 2nd November, 1967. Both the references came to be heard together by consent of parties and were disposed of by an order of the Tribunal passed on 6th March, 1968. The reference were upon th...
Tag this Judgment!Sahida Ismail Vs. Petko R. Salvejkov and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Bom18; (1972)74BOMLR514; 1972MhLJ798
ORDER1. The Plaintiff Mrs. Sahida Ismail has filed this suit in this Court in its Admiralty and Vice-admiralty Jurisdiction. In this suit, the steamship Petko R. Salvejkov is made defendant No.1; the Indian Agents of the owners of the ship Messrs. J.M.Baxi & Co. are made defendant No.2 and the consignees of the cargo in Colombo are made defendant No.3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have taken out the present notice of motion for an order that the warrant for arrest issued by this Court on June 8, 1971 be superseded and set aside: that the guarantee executed by the second defendants in favour of the Admiralty Registrar on June 8, 1971 be cancelled and returned to the second defendants and that it may be held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in exercise of its admiralty and vice admiralty jurisdiction.2. The facts on the basis of which the notice of motion is argued are not as all in controversy. On December 17, 1970 the plaintiff consigned a cargo of 569 Metric Tonnes...
Tag this Judgment!Bhalchandra Dharmajee Makaji and ors. Vs. Alcock, Ashdown and Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1971
Reported in: [1972]42CompCas190(Bom)
Nain, J.1. These are two judges' summonses, one taken out in Company Petition No. 86 of 1971 for appointment of official liquidator as provisional liquidator of Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') pending the hearing and final disposal of the main petition which is a petition for winding up the company. The other is taken out in Company Petition No. 114 of 1971 for appointment of an administrator or special officer with all powers of the board of directors of the company pending the hearing and final disposal of the main petition, which is for reliefs under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. A few facts about the company may be mentioned. These facts are not in dispute. The company was incorporated in India in 1884 and has its registered office in Bombay. It has workshops at Bombay and Bhavnagar. The company carries on business of manufacture and supply of heavy and light structurals, transmission line towers, railways points and crossi...
Tag this Judgment!New Prahlad Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Cit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR480(Bom)
Chandrachud, J.1. This is a reference under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the determination of there questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 5,44,580 (rupees five lakhs forty-four thousand five hundred and eighty) on sale of shares of the Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. and East and West Insurance Co. Ltd. was a revenue loss allowable in computing the business of the petitioners (2) Whether there is any evidence for coming to the conclusion that the sole intention in purchasing the shares of the Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. and East and West Insurance Co. Ltd. in the year ending March 31, 1949, was to acquire a hold over the insurance companies (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal has misdirected itself in law and acted without evidence in coming to the conclusion that the loss of Rs. 5,44,580 (rupees five lakhs forty-four thousand five-hundred and eighty) was not a reve...
Tag this Judgment!Kisanlal Bachharaj Vyas Vs. Mohan Chandmal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Bom410; 1971MhLJ809
Gatne, J.1. The appellant who was the plaintiff in the Court below has a grievance against the order passed bv the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, on August 9, dismissing his suit as being barred by limitation.2. The suit in question was based on a pro-note dated September 11, 1957. The pro-note in question was said to have been executed bv the first defendant for himself and as manager of the joint family consisting of himself and defendant No. 2, in plaintiff's favour for a sum of Rs. 12,500/-. The amount claimed in the suit on the strength of this pro-note from both the defendants was Rs. 14,750/-. The period of limitation available for a suit to enforce the payment of pro-note being three years, the plaint in question was required to be filed in the Court on September 11, 1960. But since that happened to be a Sunday, the plaint was actually presented on the following day when the Court re-opened after the week-end i.e., on September 12. 1960. It was not, however, present...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »