Mumbai Court September 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.
In Re: Tripura Jute Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1974
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas460(Bom)
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. has filed the suit against the Standard Chartered Bank, the defendant, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,38,440 on the following allegations : 2. By a tender notice published in August, 1974, the plaintiff invited tender from the manufacturers of machinery for the supply and delivery of plant and equipment required for a jute mill to be set up at Agartala in the State of Tripura. By the letter dated September 28, 1974, addressed to the plaintiff, M/s. Bird and Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the said sellers') offered to manufacture and sell the machinery required by the plaintiff. Thereafter, negotiations started between the plaintiff and the sellers regarding the terms and conditions of the proposed contract and in the course of such negotiations, it was agreed that the plaintiff would pay the sellers a total sum of Rs. 40,63,844 by way of advance, in instalments provided the sellers furnished a bank guarantee or guarantees in favo...
In Re: Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1974
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas355(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. By this company petition filed under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner-company (The Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd.) is seeking to obtain the sanction of this court to an arrangement being the scheme of amalgamation of West Bokaro Ltd. with the petitioner-company; and it directly raises the question about the proper scope and ambit of section 23(3) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Monopolies Act'). 2. The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated. The petitioner-company was incorporated on 28th of August, 1907, under the Indian Companies act VI of 1882, having its registered office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Bombay. The authorised capital of the petitioner-company is Rs. 56,50,00,000 divided into 50,000 6% cumulative preference shares of Rs. 150 each; 7,00,000 7 1/2% cumulative second preference shares of Rs. 100 each; 3,75,000 7 1/2% cumulative 'A' second...
Braham Dutt Sharma Vs. S. Bishan Singh Rangwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1974
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR462
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Complainant Braham Dutt Sharma is occupying room No. 4A, Satwant Villa, Aarey Road, Near Railway Crossing, Goregaon (West), Bombay, which is owned by the accused. According to the complainant, he is occupying the said premises as a tenant since 1954. In the beginning, when he came to occupy the said premises, he was paying Rs. 10 per month as rent and he continued to pay the same rent till 1956. Between 1956 and 1959, the landlord started charging Rs. 12.50 p. as monthly rent for the said premises. According to the complainant, the landlord thereafter went on gradually increasing the rent and on the date of filing of the complaint, he was paying Rs. 18.40 p. per month as rent. He further contended that he had asked the landlord verbally to furnish with the data on the basis of which the present rent has been charged by him, but the accused has not furnished him with the said data. Therefore, he served a notice dated October 6, 1971, upon the landlord, calling upon h...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhimrao Vithal Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1974
Reported in: (1976)IILLJ365Bom; 1973MhLJ39
Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench as it was stated by the Assistant Government Pleader before the learned single Judge that the question as to who is the head of the Police Department is a matter of general importance and an authoritative pronouncement of the High Court is necessary for the guidance of the Government. On that statement being made the appeal itself has been referred to a Division Bench. 2. The facts leading to this litigation are very few and are not in dispute. The respondent, original plaintiff, was a police constable attached to the Juna Rajawada Police Station at Kolhapur. While he was returning after seeing a cinema show in the night of August 15, 1959, he was accosted by the Officers and men of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. As he was smelling of alcohol he was produced before the Civil Surgeon and his blood was obtained for examination. The clinical examination showed that though the pupils were dilated and he was smelling of alcohol, ...
K. Jayaraja Ballal Vs. the Commissioner of Bombay Division
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1974
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR689
Malvankar, J.1. The petitioner is a contract carriage operator on the Man-galore-Bombay route both ways. He had submitted returns in Form No. II prescribed under the Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') framed under Section 22 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), because he was running contract carriage services under contract carriage permits issued by the Transport Authority in the State of Karnataka. These returns were submitted by him under Section 4 of the Act. On receipt of these returns, respondent No. 2-the Tax Officer issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to establish the correctness and completeness of the returns submitted by him under Section 6(b) of the Act. It is alleged by the petitioner that on receipt of this notice, he produced accounts maintained by him. But respondent No. 2-the Tax Officer refused to accept them and proceeded to assess the tax...
Vithal Ranganath Gaikwad and ors. Vs. Murlidhar Vaman Dhavale and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom358; (1975)77BOMLR387; ILR1976Bom1878
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question raised in this Special Civil Application (NO. 2104 of 1970) pertains to the applicability of Section 37 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act( to proceedings taken and orders passed under Section `15 read with Section 29 of the Act, and since on this aspect, there is a conflict of decisions, the matters has been referred to a Division Bench.2. The question arises in these circumstances: The property involved in this litigation is Survey No. 446 admeasuring 26 acres and 1 guntha with a pot-kharaba of 15 gunthas, assessed at Rs. 34, situate at village Newasa Budrrk, Dist, Ahmednagar, petitioner No. 1 was the landlord of this land, while opponent No. 1 was the tenant. Sometime prior to 2nd of September 1957 opponent No. 1 surrendered the land in favour of petitioner No. 1 who at that time was a minor represented by his guardian, opponent No. 2. On 2nd of September 1957 the tenant made an application under ...
Philips India Ltd. Vs. Kunju Punnu and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom306; (1975)77BOMLR337; 1975MhLJ792
Vaidya, J. 1. The above first appeals raise an important question of the liability of a medical consultant of company in tort. They are directed against the Judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona on April 30, 1965 ordering defendant No.1 Philips India Ltd,, and defendant No.2, Dr. Shaikh Suleman, a medical practitioner of Poona, to pay to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 Kunju Punnu the mother of the deceased employee of defendant No.1 Rs. 18,000/- together with costs of the suit and future interest on that amount at the rate of 6 percent, per annum till satisfaction. 2. The allegations made in the plaint presented in forma pauperis by Kunju Punnu on July 11, 1962 and registered as Special Civil Suit No. 31 of 1963. can be briefly summarised as under:- 3. The plaintiff's son, V.K. Gopal was an employee of defendant No.1 company on a monthly salary of Rs.105/- as a machine operator. Defendant No.2 is the Medical Officer and Adviser of defendant No.1 com...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mansingka Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1974
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT158(Bom)
Mukhi, J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India in the Department of Central Excise against a decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in favour of the respondents Mansingka Industries Private Limited' a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and inter alia manufacturing vegetable products at Pachora in District Jalgaon.2. The respondents-plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Jalgaon, contending that the Union of India had illegally recovered from them certain moneys purported to be excise duties under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1944')3. As stated, the suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge, who inter alia ordered that an amount of Rs. 60,334.66, being the balance amount illegally collected as excise duty, be refunded to the respondents.4. Two short points arise in this appeal. But before we discuss them it is necessary to set out some facts.5...
Ratilal Narbheram Vs. Welji Nagji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom218; 1975MhLJ136
1. The appellant decree holder filed a Civil Suit No. 183-A of 1953 in the Civil Court, Akola, Against the respondents to recover possession of certain shop premises situated in mangaldas Market, Akola, alleging that he had leased out the said shop to respondent No. 1 on a monthly tenancy and that the respondent No. 1 had defaulted in payment of rent. It is also contended therein that he had also sub-let a part of the premises to respondent No.2 without his permission. Before institution of this suit the landholder had obtained necessary permission from the House Rent Controller, Akola, to issue notice of ejectment against the opponents and had actually served a notice on them. The suit was resisted by the judgment -debtor respondent only and the other opponent remained absent. Ultimately that suit ended in compromise between the appellant and the respondent on 18-8-1954. As the controversy involved in this appeal is based on the recitals of this compromise decree, it will be useful to...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›