Mumbai Court August 1976 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.
Siddhanath Krishnaji Kadam Vs. Dadajee Dhachjee and Co. Private Limite ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1976
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR614
Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner in this Special Civil Application was an employee of respondent No. 1 for about twenty-three years. On September 30, 1969 he was discharged from service. The petitioner challenged this order of discharge, and the dispute was referred, in due course to the third Labour Court, Bombay, at the instance of the Union. In his written-statement, the petitioner claimed that the discharge, being punitive in essence, was, legally bad, mala fide and an act of victimization. The employer, on the other hand, among other details, pleaded that it had received some complaints about, the petitioner's unhealthy activities and, doing some outside motor repairing work privately for consideration. The Assistant Engineer of the Company, relevant submitted a report on September 19, 1969 saying that the employee was found by him working at a Dadar garage of some one else on September 16, 1969, though he had left the office on the pretext of going to Repairing Board for personal w...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Bhalchamora D. Jokhakar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR228(Bom)
TULZAPURKAR J. - The question that has been referred to us for our determination in this referred under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, runs as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the annuity of Rs. 1,000 per month arising to assessee under annexure C was exempt under section 2(e)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'The question relates to wealth-tax assessment year 1962-63 and 1963-64, the relevant valuation dates being March 31, 1962,and March 31, 1963, respectively. Original assessee, Manu Subedar, since deceased (his executors have been brought on record), was a well-known economist and financial adviser. Under an agreement of lease dated November 1, 1943, made between the original assessee and the Government of India a plot of land situate in Marine Lines locality was obtained on lease by the original assessee for a period of 999 year on an annual rent of Re.1 and for consideration of approximately Rs. 3,60,000. It appears that this plot of...
Commercial Art Engravers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian and Eastern Newspapers S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1976
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas36(Bom)
Mridul, J.1. By this judge's summons three joint stock companies, which claim to be creditors of Mass Communications and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), pray for a direction that the official liquidator (hereinafter called 'the liquidator') be directed to furnish to them a copy of his report made to this court for direction in connection with a suit filed in the Small Causes Court, Bombay. The claim for such a direction by the applicants is founded on their legal rights as creditors of the company as also on the principles of natural justice. The applicants are supported by the petitioners at whose instance the company was directed to be wound up by this court. The liquidator resists the application. Having regard to the importance of the questions involved, the Incorporated Law Society, a body which represents the profession of solicitors at Bombay, sought permission to intervene in the matter. Such permission was granted and the said S...
Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Vs. Shri Ramdas Trimbak Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR364
Chandurkar, J.1. These petitions filed by the two petitioners, out of whom petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company and petitioner No. 2 is its Managing Director, arise out of four civil suits which are filed by the four employees of petitioner No. 1 company challenging the action of the employer in instituting disciplinary proceedings against them and appointing one Mr. Mahomed Hussein Shaikh, a retired Labour Court Judge, now at Poona, as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the employees.2. It is not disputed that the plaints in all the four suits filed by the four employees are identically worded and are based on identical facts. It is enough, therefore, to refer to the averments made in regular civil suit No. 8 of 1976 which was filed by one Mr. Chandrakant Dattatraya Janvekar out of which Special Civil Applications Nos. 2390 and 2391 of 1976 arise. The respondent-employee was originally suspended by an order dated August 9, 1975 by an order made by pe...
SardruddIn Allisaheb Mutavali and ors. Vs. Hajarat Peer Shamma Meer Sa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom38
1. The respondents are the Trustees of the famous Dargah of Hajarat Peer Shamma Meer Saheb at Miraj. The Dargah is registered as a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.2. On November 30, 1964, the respondents filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj, against the appellants to get a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from touching or removing the Maitana and Amish, i.e., articles and cash amounts of Navas offered by the devotees of the Dargah at the time of Moharrum and Urus festivals, and further restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs' right of distributing the said Maitana and Amish and cash amount. They also sued to obtain accounts from the defendants about the Maitana and Amish removed by the defendants during the Moharrum and Urus of 1963 and during the Moharrum of 1964; and for the recovery of the amount that would be found due from the defendants at the' foot of the accounts and costs.3. According to the pla...
R.P. Ghosh Vs. Pramilabai Ravindra Puri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom181; 1976MhLJ828
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The non-applicants-plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment, damages, mesne profits etc., against the applicant-defendant, It is an admitted position that the applicant-original defendant was a tenant of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 14/- per month, Original Landlord Ravindra Puri filed an application, amongst other grounds, under Clause 13 (3) (vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, referred to hereinafter as the Rent' Control Order, seeking permission to serve a notice terminating the tenancy of the applicant-defendant on the ground that he required the premises for his and his family's bona fide personal occupation. Such a permission was granted to late Ravindra Puri by the Rent Controller on 30-3-1970. An appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority on 27-8-1970. Thereafter Ravindra Puri served a notice upon the defendant-tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›