Mumbai Court March 1979 Judgments
Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jagannath Bhikusa Kshatriya and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Bom302; (1980)82BOMLR239
ORDER1. This petition questions the order made by the Joint Judge, Nasik, whereby he vacated the order of injunction passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sinnar, holding that the suit filed by the present petitioner was not entertainable by the Civil Court in view of the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. There were also observations in the body of the judgment impugned that even otherwise also the injunction should not have been granted. But with regard to that aspect both the learned Counsel submit that the matter may be remanded for reconsideration in case this Court upholds the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit filed by the present petitioner.2. Thus, the sole question to be determined in the present petition is whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge to entertain Regular Civil Suit No. 327 of 1977 filed by the present petitioner was ousted by the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The view that prevailed wi...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Cotton Growers' Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited, Sangli Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1979
Reported in: [1979(39)FLR173]; (1979)ILLJ487Bom
Naik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner-society challenges the award of the President of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, dated 14th January, 1974. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly these : The petitioner-society was registered to on September 9, 1964 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling yarn at Sangli. About Rs. 17 lakhs and odd were collected from the shareholders and about Rs. 30 lakhs and odd were secured as loan from the Government. According to the petitioner, the trial of manufacturing yarn commenced on July 4, 1970 and actual commercial production as such started from March, 1971, 25,000 spindles were sanctioned by the Government but actually 12,500 spindles were in operation. On May 24, 1971 the union gave a notice of change about the charter of demands. The charter of demands consists of 4 demands. In respect of two demands, viz., the demand to get dearness allowance at the rate of 100% of the cost of living index for Sholapur from 1st August, ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Nabi Chaku Vs. G.M. Shahdadpuri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC387(Bom)
Lentin, J. 1. This is a petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of, and for setting aside, certain assessment and penalty orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, viz., the Sales Tax Officer, A Ward, Bombay, and the Sales Tax Officer (Enforcement Branch), Greater Bombay, and the demand notice dated 31st July, 1972, issued by the fourth respondent, viz., the Special Tahsildar (Recoveries), Srinagar. The fifth respondent is the erstwhile partner of the petitioner. 2. The facts leading to this petition are as follows : 3. From 24th June, 1964, till 24th March, 1966, the petitioner and the fifth respondent carried on business in partnership in the name and style of M/s. Kashmir Palace in Bombay. This partnership was dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated 24th March, 1966, in terms whereof, inter alia, the accounts between the partners were settled and the fifth respondent took upon himself the entire responsibility of paying and discharging al...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kelly and Henderson P. Ltd., L. Jai Kulbir Singh and anr. Vs. K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1979
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas646(Bom)
Smt. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioners are the shareholders of M/s. Kelly and Henderson P. Ltd., a company incorporated on 16th November, 1947, with an authorised share capital of Rs. 25 lakhs divided into 2,500 shares of Rs. 1,000 each and the issued capital of Rs. 5,40,000 divided into 540 shares of Rs. 1,000 each out of which only 140 shares are fully paid up while 400 shares are unpaid. The 2nd petitioner is also a director of the company. The main business of the company is running a hotel known as 'Hotel Waldorf.' 2. It appears to be almost a family concern. The petitioners are sisters. Their father, Sardar Bakshi Dalip Singh, claims to have started this company. Apart from the petitioners who are the daughters of Sardar Bakshi Dalip Singh, the other shareholders are the widowed daughter-in-law, the two grandsons and the wife (since deceased) of Sardar Bakshi Dilip Singh. The only outsider is Sardar Teja Singh who holds 2 shares in the company. The present petition has been fi...
Tag this Judgment!Binod Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. S.A. Kadre, Excess Profits Tax Officer and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1979
Reported in: [1980]122ITR778(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN470(Bom)
Pendse J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacturer and dealer of cotton textile goods. The petitioner was assessed under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the dispute in this petition relates to the chargeable accounting period for the calendar year ending on December 31, 1942. The petitioner filed before the 1st respondent a return under the Act for the relevant year showing turnover in the taxable territories of Rs. 28,397 and according to the petitioner no tax was payable under the Act. However, the 1st respondent made a provisional assessment under s. 14A of the Act and demanded by way of tax a sum of Rs. 2,20,000. The petitioner paid the amount under protest and requested the 1st respondent to cancel the notice issued under s. 14A of the Act. The 1st respondent passed an assessment order on October 31, 1962, holding that the excess profit that accrued in the taxable territories was Rs. 1,62,868...
Tag this Judgment!Mill Stores Trading Co. of India P. Ltd. Vs. J.B. Panchal, Income-tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1979
Reported in: [1981]131ITR470(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN375(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is a company assessed under the Excess Profits tax Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The relevant chargeable accounting periods which are in dispute in this petition are the calendar years 1941 and 1942. The petitioner, in the relevant period, was doing business in mill stores including oils and lubricants. Mr. Homi Mehta and his four sons held 91% profits-shares. The petitioner also did business in Ahmedabad through one G. P. Parikh. In November, 1941, two private companies were registered and they were : (1) Mill stores (Ahmedabad) Ltd., and (2) Sir Homi Mehta (Ahmedabad) Ltd. 2. The 1st respondent, ITO, completed the petitioner's assessment under the provisions of the Act and came to the conclusion that s. 10A of the Act cannot be invoked in respect of the petitioner's business and the business of the two private companies registered in Ahmedabad. The EPTO also issued notice to the Mill Stores (Ahmedabad) Ltd. under s. 10A of the Act to sh...
Tag this Judgment!Sonya Dagdu and anr. Vs. Manhu Dagadu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom62; (1980)82BOMLR119; 1980MhLJ17
ORDER1. This petition for leave under the Letters Patent raises an important question and one having direct impact and consequence in the field of appeals and/or leave applications under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in respect of any appeal from an appellate decree or order passed by a single Judge of a High Court.2. It is needless to relate all the facts. Suffice to state that the original suit filed in 1068 was one for declaration of title and possession. Defence was denial of title. Holding plaintiffs' title proved, the trial Court decreed the suit. Appeal to the District Court failed. Second appeal therefrom was dismissed by me on 7th Feb. 1978. The defendants now pray for leave to prefer against my judgment, appeal under the Letters Patent.3. Mr. Vaishnav for the opponents a preliminary objection viz., that having regard to the relevant provisions of Act No. 104 of 1976 (hereinafter the Amending Act) introducing manifold amendments in the Civil P. C., 1908, this leave applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Kulkarni Foundaries Ltd. Vs. M.G. Chitale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR306
Naik, J.1. By this petition the petitioners seek for a writ of certiorari for quashing the award dated December 3, 1973, passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) Nos. 211 and 281 of 1972.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are not in dispute. The petitioner is having a foundry at Poona. Three hundred workmen were employed in that factory. It appears that in the wake of acute recession in the year 19.71 after giving layoff notices the workmen were laid-off between November 1971 to July 1972. They were in fact paid fifty per cent. of their wages as per the provisions of Section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Subsequently the petitioners were required to retrench ten persons out of which they took back one with the result nine workmen stood finally retrenched.3. The lay-off was challenged as being mala fide in all industrial dispute which was raised by the union. The conciliation having failed a reference was made and that was Reference (IT) No. 211 of 1972. In...
Tag this Judgment!Bansi Ragho Barahate Vs. Sewakram Bansi Barahate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Bom274
ORDER1. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the original defendant No. 1 against the order dated 3-12-1976 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1976 confirming the order dated 25-3-1976, passed by the III Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 198 of 1976 granting the application for temporary injunction filed by the original plaintiff.2. The plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 1 and he filed the suit for partition and separate possession of joint Hindu family property. So far as the present revision is concerned, the dispute relates to 2.50 acres of land of Survey No. 105/2 of village Parsodi. The defendant No. 1 had filed an application under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagpur, alleging that he was dispossessed by his son the plaintiff two months next before the filing of that application. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaysing Rangarao Raut Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1979
Reported in: (1980)ILLJ117Bom
1. The petitioner in the present petition was an employee of the 1st respondent. The petitioner as well as other employees of the 1st respondent were members of a trade union known as the Maharashtra Rajya Vij Mandal Nokar Sangh. On or about 6th February, 1967 the employees of the 1st respondent including the petitioner went on strike. This strike continued for some period. During the period of the strike, on or about 3rd March, 1967 a large number of employees of the 1st respondent had gathered in a open space at Sangli and they were shouting slogans. At about 5-30 P.M. on that day, a jeep belonging to the 1st respondent was proceeding to Budhgaon, carrying some of the engineers of the 1st respondent. These engineers wanted to go to Budhgaon for carrying out repairs to the water works at Budhgaon. This jeep was prevented from proceeding to Budhgaon by the employees who had gathered in the open space and the jeep had to go back. The petitioner was one of the employees who stood in fron...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »