Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1975]45CompCas574(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. This is a special case filed for the opinion of this court under the provisions of order 36 of the Civil Procedure Code. Three questions have been asked at the end of the special case; but before refereeing to them or discussing them, the facts which are not in dispute may be briefly stated. 2. The 1st plaintiff to the special case is a sports and social club (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cricket Club' for the sake of brevity), registered as a company limited by guarantee, having no share capital. It is incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and today functions under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 17 have been described as members of the executive committee of the 1st plaintiff, and the powers and functions of this executive committee are admittedly analogous to those of the board of directors of a company under the Companies Act, 1956. 3. Articles 69 to 92 of the articles of association of the Cricket C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1975Bom244; (1975)77BOMLR517; 1975MhLJ244
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to this Full Bench by e learned Single Judge for our determination which run as follows:- (1) What is the true and correct interpretation of the Explanation appended to Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and whether by that Explanation a litigant applying after the decree is made can exclude the time taken by the Court to prepare the decree and treat it as the time requisite for obtaining a copy of decree under Section 12 (2) of the Act? (2) Whether after the passing of the 1963 Act under Article 116 the starting point for limitation is the date on which actually the decree is made; or is the date of the judgment still the starting point for limitation? 2. Principally the first question centers round the true and proper interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1963 and the Explanation thereto and the question arises under these circumstances: The above two Second Appeals were file din this k Court on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1975Bom257; (1975)77BOMLR558; 1975MhLJ682
Kantawala, C.J.1. This Division Bench of this Court has referred to the Full bench the following two questions for determination:(1) Is the scope of the fiction in the Explanation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as wide as was held in Rangubai v. Laxman, : AIR1966Bom169 , and whether the view taken in Rangubai's case that as a result of the notional partition contemplated by the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the shares of persons other than the deceased coparcener also become fixed as if a partition had taken place during the lifetime of the deceased coparcener is correct? (2) On the facts found in this case to what share is the plaintiff entitled in the suit property? 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her share in movable and immovable property referred to in the plaint. Plaintiff Sushilabai is the daughter of one Narayanrao. Narayanrao had a wife by name Laxmibai, Narayanrao adopted a son by name Shridhar, Shridh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR143
Vimadalal, J.1. This appeal has been referred to me under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure on a difference of opinion between my brother Bhole and my brother Mukhi. The facts have been set out in detail by my brother Mukhi in his judgment and it is not necessary for me to set them out again. Suffice it to say that, on a petition filed by the respondent-husband for judicial separation on the ground, inter alia, of desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, being Marriage Petition No. 5 of 1966, after evidence was taken, the parties presented a joint compromise purshis on September 5, 1966 in which it was stated that, in view of the evidence led before the Court, it appeared that the parties could not live together as husband and wife and there was, therefore, no objection from them to a decree for judicial separation being passed by the Court. It was, therefore, prayed in the purshis that a decree might be passed accordingly, and it was further stated that the parties were a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR116
Bhole, J.1. This reference has been made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kandhar, District Nanded alleging that Police Sub-Inspector J.V. Patil of Kandhar Police Station, Deputy Superintendent of Police Takalkar, who was in charge of the said Police Station and Police Constable Pundlik have committed contempt of Court. The reference was made by him on May 5, 1973. It had to go to the District and Sessions Judge, Nanded and the learned District Judge gave his opinion by his letter dated September 26, 1973 and sent the papers to this Court. The matter then came up before our learned brother Deshpande J., Administrative Judge and he directed to place the matter before the Division Bench for taking action under the provisions of Section 2(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against J.V. Patil, Police Sub-Inspector, Takalkar, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Pundlik, Police Constable for non-compliance of the Court's orders from time to time and for their acts of undermining,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1977]106ITR576(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. This references relates to the question whether the amounts of share of managing agency commission for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61, respectively, are liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessee as his income. The share of managing agency commission was receivable under an agreement dated February 26, 1951, entered into between the assessee and his brother on the one hand and Messrs. Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the managing agency company'). The managing agency company was the managing agent of Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the mills company') since 1935. The assessee and his brother, B.R. Damani, acquired numerous shares in the mills company but the mills company refused to have the transfers registered in its books, with the result that certain dispute arose between the mills company and the managing agency company on the one hand and the assessee and his brother on the ot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1979]116ITR602(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. The question that has been referred to us by the Tribunal under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2,70,593 is liable to tax under s. 10(2A) of the Act ?' 2. The question pertains to the assessment year 1957-58, the corresponding accounting year being a period from April 1, 1956, to December 31, 1956, and it arises in these circumstances : The respondent-assessee, M/s. Gagalbhai Jute Mills Ltd., runs a jute mill and owns machineries of different kinds forming part of its assets. During the relevant accounting period from April 1, 1956, to December 31, 1956, the assessee sold some items of machinery on which it earned profits, part of which related to machineries actually used during the relevant previous year, but the major part arose in respect of items of machinery which were admittedly not used for its business durin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1976]105ITR764(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and at the instance of the assessee the following two questions of law stated to be arising out of the Tribunal's order have been referred to us for our determination : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the terms of annexure 'A' (partnership deed dated August 28, 1950) the amount of Rs. 2,61,821 derived from the firm of M/s. Bhogilal Laherchand accrued to Arvind at any time on or before August 31, 1950, so as to attract section 24B of the Income-tax Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs. 2,61,821 was exempt as capital receipt ?' 2. The questions relate to the assessment year 1951-52, the corresponding accounting year being S.Y. 2006 (October 22, 1949, to November, 9, 1950) and arise out of these facts Ms. Bhogilal Laherchand is a firm originally constituted under a deed of partnership dated April...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1976]102ITR385(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. This reference relates to a question pertaining to inclusion of the income of a wife as a partner of a firm on the ground that the requisite capital to be subscribed by her was contributed put of gifts made by the assessee, her husband in favour of the wife. The matter regales to the assessment year 1960-61, for which the corresponding accounting year is the calendar year 1959. Assessee, Bhaichand, carried on business in partnership with his brother, Mathuradas, in the name and style of Chandravadan & Co. some time in August, 1953 and the terms of the partnership were reduced to writing by a partnership deed dated July 24, 1954. In this partnership the assessee, Bhaichand, was entitled and liable to bear 10 annas share in the profits and losses, while his brother, Mathuradas, was entitled and liable to bear 6 annas share in the profits and losses. There was no term in the deed of partnership relating to ownership of good will and tenancy right of the premises where th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1975Bom191; 1974MhLJ959
1. This appeal is filed against the order made by the Civil Judge. Senior Division on April 8, 1974, holding that the Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 20 of 1973, was incompetent as the Special Civil Suit No. 16 of 1972 decided on February 27, 1973 was disposed of with the aid of the provision of Order 17. Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, an application under Order 9, Rule 13, did not lie. The merits of the sufficient cause had not been answered. 2. Some facts are not in dispute. The said Special Civil Suit was filed seeking specific relief on the basis of agreement to sell agricultural land. The 6th on January 1973 was the date fixed for evidence and thereafter the hearing of the suit was adjourned to 22nd January and then to 1st February, on which date plaintiff entered the witness-box and examined himself in chief. An application was filed on behalf of the defendant by the counsel seeking time for cross-examination. That was allowed and the case was posed for Febr...
Tag this Judgment!