Mumbai Court October 1974 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.
Focus Advertising Private Ltd. Vs. Ahoora Blocks Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1974
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas534(Bom)
Mukhi, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of winding up passed by the learned company judge (Vimadalal J.) whereby he ordered that the company, Messrs. Focus Advertising Private Ltd., be wound up under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and that the official liquidator be appointed liquidator of the company and its assets. 2. The order was passed on the 14th of March, 1974, and just prior there to on a preliminary point taken up by the counsel for the company, the learned company judge passed a separate order rejecting the preliminary objection and that is how the hearing of the petition proceeded, resulting in the order of winding up being made. 3. Being aggrieved by the two orders of the 14th of March, 1974, the company has filed this appeal. 4. It is to be noticed that Focus Advertising Private Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company') is, as disclosed by its very name, an advertising company and carries on its business with its registered office at Bombay and a br...
Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Private Limited, Bombay Vs. the Workme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ1Bom
ORDER1. This is reference made by the Government of Maharashtra under S. 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947, referring for adjudication the industrial dispute that exist between the Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and the workmen employed under it. 2. The statement of claim in this matter has been filed by the President of the Bharat Barrel Employees' Union on behalf of the workers. The order of reference shows that the demand is whether the nature of the closure declared by the company is for a temporary period and to defect the pending claims of the workers and whether the reasons for the closure are bona fide. It is further mentioned in the order of reference as to whether the said closure is legal and bona fide and if not, what further relief to be given to the workmen in addition to the wages for the period of enforced unemployment. It is also a demand that in case the closure is found legal and bona-fide then whether the workmen are entitled to compensation under the ...
Narendra Bachubhai Dave Vs. Jethalal S. Dave
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1974
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR196
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of Gandhi J. dismissing the Chamber Summons taken out by the appellants, in suit No. 375 of 1962 in this Court, praying that appellant No. 1 should be relieved of certain undertakings given by him under the consent decree passed in the said suit and for stay of all proceedings in execution of the said consent decree. The appeal raises some interesting questions under the newly added Section 15A and Sub-section (4A) of Section 5 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act').2. Appellant No. 1 before us was defendant No. 2 in Suit No. 375 of 1962 and all the appellants including appellant No. 1 are the heirs and legal representatives of defendant No. 1, who has died after the disposal of the suit. It may be mentioned that the parties are related and belong to the same family. The family is certainly no stranger to litigation. Respondent No. 1 before us was o...
Mohan Sons (Bombay) Private Ltd. Vs. Lady Sonoo Jamatji Jejeebhoy and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Bom417; (1976)78BOMLR195; ILR1977Bom1146
ORDER1. The petitioner, a private limited company, is original defendant No. 1 tenant. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are the original plaintiffs. They are trustees of the N. M. Wadia Charities, having their office at 22-D Parsi Bazar Street, Fort, Bombay-1. Respondent NO. 5 is the original defendant NO. 2. It is also a limited company. The plaintiffs had filed a suit against the defendants for possession of the suit premises on the ground that defendant No. 1, the tenant, had sublet a portion of the suit premises on the ground that defendant No. 1, the tenant, had sublet a portion of the suit premises in their occupation to defendant No. 2 after May 1959. As this is illegal subletting contrary to the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement, the plaintiffs were entitled to claim possession of the suit premises. The claim possession of the suit premises. The claim was also based on the ground of arrears of rent from 1-9-1960 to 10-10-1960. Both the defendants had filed separate written s...
V.K. Rao Vs. Chandappa Appa Devadiga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1974
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR16
Hajarnavis, J.1. This case has been referred to this Bench, at the instance of our learned brother Gandhi J. for decision on the following questions:1. Whether stating the grounds of his being so satisfied in Section 145(7) mean that the Magistrate empowered under the section to pass order must separately give reasons or grounds of being so satisfied of his reading the application and satisfying himself by seeing that the complainant has made statements on solemn affirmation are sufficient to pass a preliminary order?2. Whether non-stating of grounds or reasons vitiates the order and/or the subsequent proceedings including the final order under Section 145(6)?3. Whether the preliminary order passed on a cyclostyled form with blanks filled in ink necessarily implies that the Magistrate has not applied his mind or has mechanically passed the order without considering the contents of the application?4. Whether 'a breach of the peace' referred to in Section 145(1) necessarily means 'breach...
Framroze Maneckji Bilimoria Vs. Suhrid Geigy Trading Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1974
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR9
Bhole, J.1. The original plaintiff-trustees are the petitioners here. They are the trustees appointed under the deed of settlement dated December 23, 1953 executed by Manekji Rustomji Bilimoria and his wife Meherbai Manekji Bilimoria. The subject-matter of the suit is one of the trust properties known as 'Battery House' situate at Warden Road, Bombay. We are here concerned only with flat No. 1 on the third floor of Battery House which was leased out originally to the respondents here in 1954. There was subsequently renewal of the lease for a further period of five years. The respondents after the expiry of renewed lease continued to remain in possession and to pay rent but the petitioners terminated the tenancy of the respondents by a notice to quit in December 1964 and later filed a suit for eviction in May 1965.2. The possession was sought by the petitioners on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement by petitioner No. 1, who is one of the trustees and a son of late Manekji...
Jagdish D. Dengvekar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1974
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT581(Bom)
1. By this special Civil Application petitioner Jagdish D. Dengvekar is seeking to quash or set aside the order passed by Superintendent, Central Excise, Poona II Divn. on 26/27th April 1968 whereby the Superintendent, Central Excise, levied excise duty Rs. 566.44 on the petitioner for manufacturing French Polish between March 1964 and May 1965 and further excise duty of Rs. 228.21 for having manufactured French Polish between June 1965 and April 1966 and further levied penalty of Rs. 5/- for breach of Rule 9 and penalty of Rs. 2/- for breach of Rule 53, which order levying excise duty as well as penalty was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise on 3rd September, 1969.2. A few facts leading to the petition may be stated. In January, 1963 the petitioner made an application for licence to manufacture French Polish and also for a permit for denatured spirit. It appears that he wanted to start a manufacturing concern in his factory at Poona and for that purpose he made the aforesaid...
Messrs. Victory Flask Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govind Bhagoji Borje
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1974
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR597
Lentin, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated August 19, 1969 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, viz. respondent No. 2.2. The petitioners are a private limited company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, having their factory at Govandi, Bombay. Till April 1, 1969, respondent No. 1 was in the employment of the petitioners. On December 28, 1968, the respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted by the petitioners under Standing Orders 24(k) and 24(I), on the ground that on November 21, 1968 at about 8.30 p.m. after working hours, just outside the petitioners' factory, respondent No. 1 and one Shantaram Kamble assaulted a co-worker one Babu Jadhav, while Jadhav was on his way home along the railway lines towards Govandi Railway Station. The inquiry against respondent No. 1 thereafter proceeded which culminated in the Director of the petitioners passing an order of dismissal against respondent No. 1 on April 1, 1969. On the same day, ...
Vyankatesh Dhonddey Deshpande Vs. Sou, Kusm Dattatraya Kulkarni and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Bom190; (1975)77BOMLR671; 1976MhLJ373
Vaidya, J. 1. These two appeals involve an interesting question regarding the validity of an auction sale of the suit lands which originally belonged to the joint family of the respondents and Dattatray Govind Kulkarani, the husband of respondent No. 1 and the father of respondents 2 to 6, and which were allotted at a partition made prior to the auction sale which was held for recovering the Tagai loan advanced in respect of other land belonging to the family to the said Dattatray. 2. The allegations made by the respondent-plaintiffs can be briefly summarised as under:- 3. Plaintiff No. 1 is the wife and plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 are the sons of Dattatray Govind Kulkurani. Plaintiff No. 1 happens to be the second wife of Dattatray and plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, who were minors when the suit was filed, are her sons from Dattatray. Plaintiffs Nos. 4 to 6 are the sons of Dattatray from his first wife. A partition was effected by Dattatray with a view to avoid future disputes under a registered...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›