Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1975Bom281
Dharmadhikari, J. 1. As all these writ petitioners relate to the lands comprised in one and the same Scheme, namely, Eastern Industrial Area Street Scheme, and were argued together, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 422 of 1970 are owners of Khasra Nos. 61, 68, 69 and 70, admeasuring about 39.77 acres of land of mouza Chikhili situated within the territorial limits of the Corporation of City of Nagpur. It is the contention of the petitioners that the income from these lands is the only source of their livelihood.2. Respondent No. 2, the Nagpur Improvement Trust, framed a Scheme known as Eastern Industrial Area Street Scheme, referred to hereinafter as the Scheme. Initially it seems that such a scheme was framed in the year 1947. A notice under Section 39 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, referred to hereinafter as the Act, was also published and objections were invited. According to the petitioners, they had raised ob...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1974]44CompCas567(Bom)
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a winding-up petition filed against a company named focus Advertising Pvt. Ltd., on the ground of non-compliance with a statutory notice under section 434(1)9a) read with section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. By a separate order passed by me earlier today, I have already rejected the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Dhanuka on behalf of the company contending that this petition is not maintainable because the petitioners have not furnished therein particulars of their debts. I have, therefore, proceeded to head the petition on merits. Byh their attorney's letter dated 25th June, 1973, the petitioners gave the requisite statutory notice under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, calling upon the company to pay a sum of Rs. 17,428.41 due to them under bills submitted to the company for various blocks prepared and supplied by the petitioners as per the company's orders from time to time. It is an admitted position that no reply was sent by the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1135
ORDERShimpi, J.1. Applicant, Party No. 2, has filed this revision application challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sakoli, Shri M. N. Bobde, in Criminal Case No. 49 of 1972 and confirmed in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 1972 by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhandara in a proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts in brief are as under:Chunilal and Radhakisan were brothers residing at village Nilaj, Soniya Bai, non-applicant party No. 1, is their real sister. During their lifetime, Soniya Bai came to reside with her brothers and was residing along with Radhakisan. It appears that the brothers owned S. No. 90 measuring 18 acres 38 gunthas at village Nilaj and it is common ground that Chunilal was in enjoyment of western half portion and Radhakisan was in enjoyment of eastern half portion. It is further disclosed from the record that Chunilal was murdered by his brother Radhakishan in 1949 and Radhakisan was hanged to death in 1950. It is al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1294; 1974MhLJ871
ORDERShimpi, J.1. Party No. 1 Chandrakalabai, widow of Badrilal Paliwal, has filed this revision application praying that the record and proceedings of Criminal Revision No. 29 of 1970 of the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhandara, arising out of an order dated September 17, 1970, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bhandara, be called for and the orders passed by both the authorities be set aside.2. The facts in brief are as under:Applicant Chandrakala, party No. 1, is the widow of one Biharilal Paliwal. Shri Biharilal Paliwal held agricultural lands at village Sihora as well as at other villages, one of which is Bamni in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In this application we are concerned with the lands and a wada which has been numbered by the Gram Panchayat, Sihora as houses Nos. 2 to 7. Party No. 2 Sharadchandra was the nephew of Biharilal Paliwal. His genitive father Daulatram is the real brother of Biharilal. Sharadchandra, when he was a minor of 6 years was take...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1975Bom1; 1974MhLJ730
1. The present revision has been filed by the original plaintiff-decree holder Rajaram and the Auction - Purchaser Bisan against an order made by the District Judge, Chandrapur, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.2 of 1968, by which that Court allowed the application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure originally by the judgment-debtor one Sambha Laxman Kose.2. The material facts appear to be that in Civil Suit No.56 of 1963 in execution of a decree in the sum of Rs.1,561.60 which was passed against the said Sambha, in execution thereof the decree-holder, present applicant No.1. purported to attach immovable property being the agricultural lands bearing khasra Nos. 261/1 and 261/1 , total area 4.93 acres, which was eventually purchased in a Court auction by the applicant No. 2 Bisan, in the sum of Rupees 8,600/-. It appears said Sambha, the judgment-debtor, purported to file the present application on January 13, 1967 under O.21, R.90, Code of Civil Procedure, for setting as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1975]101ITR703(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the following three questions are referred to for our determination : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the shares of the assessee-company held by the trustees of the two trusts can be said to be held beneficially by members of the public 2. Whether on a proper construction of article 40 of the articles of association, the shares of the assessee-company are in fact freely transferable within the scope of section 23A, Explanation 3. Whether in the event of answers to questions Nos. 1 and 2 being against the assessee, in arriving at the balance of commercial profits available for distribution, the assessee's claims for deduction of Rs. 1,02,223 being charity and donations and further tax liability in the sum of Rs. 2,32,873 in respect of Rs. 5,36,113 are valid 2. The question relate to the assessment year 1952-53 for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1786; 1975MhLJ398
ORDERNaik, J.1. By this revision application, the original respondents challenge the order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, directing that an enquiry be made under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The facts leading to this revision application which are not in dispute, are briefly these : The four plaintiffs-respondents filed suit No. 6132 of 1970 against seven defendants first revision petitioners for dissolution of partnership and accounts. It appears that thereafter defendants took out a Notice of Motion directing the plaintiffs to complete an agreement of sale which was entered into by the firm in favour of the President of India, The Court having granted the motion, an appeal against the Order No. 227 of 1971 was filed against that order. On 6th March, 1972, the defendants took put another Notice of Motion for a direction against the plaintiffs to complete another alleged transaction of agreement of sale of the land of the firm in favour of one...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1975]99ITR162(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. In this reference a consolidated question has been referred to us for our determination under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), both at the instance of the revenue as well as the assessee. The question referred to us is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of annexure 'A', the income of the trust in assessable in the hands of H. H. Mahendrasinhji Maharaja of Morvi by applying section 16(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or in the hands of the trustees under section 41 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The question under reference relates to the assessment years 1956-57, to 1958-59, for which the relevant previous years ended on March 31, 1956, March 31, 1957, and March 31, 1958, respectively. The assessee out of natural love and affection for his minor son, Prince Mayurdhavsjsinhji, executed a deed of trust on October 6, 1955. The minor so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1974)76BOMLR507; 1974MhLJ777
Bhole, J.1. The petitioner, who was accused No. 1 along with his three sons, was tried for an offence punishable under Section 500, Indian Penal Code. The complainant in this case happens to be the son of the first wife of the petitioner. The complainant and his mother are living separately after the marriage of the petitioner with his second wife. The complainant was claiming by a notice addressed to the petitioner partition of his share in the ancestral property. The petitioner replied through a lawyer saying that the complainant was not his son; that his mother Anusuya had left him and that she was living an unchaste life; that he had no access to her and that therefore the complainant was not his son because he was born through sexual intercourse of his mother with some unknown person. The complainant who received the reply showed it to his father-in-law and then to his advocate. On the basis of the defamatory allegation by his father in the notice he prosecuted not only his father...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1974CriLJ1435
ORDERBhole, J.1. The petitioner, who was accused No. 1 along with his three sons, was tried for an offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.O. The complainant in this ease happens to be the son of the first wife of the petitioner. The complainant and his mother are living separately after the marriage of the petitioner with his second wife. The complainant was claiming by a notice addressed to the petitioner partition of his share in the ancestral property. The petitioner replied through a lawyer saying that the complainant was not his son that his mother Anusuya had left him and that she was living an unchaste life; that he had no access to her and that therefore the complainant was not his son because he was born through sexual intercourse of his mother with some unknown person. The complainant who received the reply showed it to his father-in-law and then to his advocate. On the basis of the defamatory allegation by his father in the notice he prosecuted not only his father but also...
Tag this Judgment!