Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1981(8)ELT676(Bom)
1. The petitioners are the proprietors of Messrs Century Rayon, a registered Company, carrying on the business of manufacture of cloth and rayon yarn. During the spinning of Viscos yarn, the petitioners use special spinneret's which are components of rayon spinning machines. The spinneret's are small articles made of gold and platinum alloy and are very costly items of the machinery. It is not possible to repair the spinneret's in the country after they lose their shape and they are required to be sent outside the country for being repaired. The petitioners have secured licences for the export of worn out spinneret's and the licences for their re-import from the Licencing authorities from time to time. 2. The petitioners are required to make applications in the prescribed form to the Director General of Technical Development, Ministry of Industrial Development and Company Affairs stating the necessary particulars for the export of the worn out spinneret's for the purpose of repairs. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1980Bom135; 1979MhLJ737
ORDER1. This case is a good example to show how omission on the part of those concerned in the Courts to pass appropriate orders at the appropriate time creates confusion in the proceedings. The facts leading to the present revision application shortly stated are as follows:--The non-applicants had obtained a decree for possession of certain immoveable property and for future mesne profits against one Hanumanbax, who was the father of the present applicants, in Civil Suit No. 321 of 1966. This decree was confirmed ultimately by this Court in second appeal. The non-applicants filed Darkhast being Regular Darkhast No. 84 of 1970 for execution of the decree in so far as the possession of the suit property was concerned and got possession in or about 1971. They then applied for determination of the mesne profits and this application was numbered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 4 of 1972. Notice of this application was issued to the judgment-debtor, viz. Hanumanbax, but is said to have b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas674(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This is a petition by the Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation for the winding up of the respondents-company on the ground that the respondents are unable to pay their debts and are commercially insolvent. The petitioners are creditors of the company for a sum of Rs. 6,33,548.23. They had served a statutory notice on the respondents dated April 20, 1978, and thereafter filed the present petition. The respondents have opposed the admission of this petition. 2. The dispute between the petitioners and the respondents centres around certain contracts placed by the Directorate-General of Supplies and Disposal for the construction of a number of boats some time in the year 1971-72. The contracts were placed by the Directorate with the petitioners who in turn placed the contracts with the respondents-company. To enable the respondents to carry out the contracts, the petitioners from time to time advanced various amounts to the respondents. There...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1980MhLJ49
P.S. Shah, J.:1. This appeal raises a question of law regarding the two scopes of section 190 and 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The question arises on the following facts which are in dispute :On January 10, 1974, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Phaitan received a charge-sheet submitted by the police against the respondents. In the charge-sheet it was mentioned that between April 23, 1973, and June 12, 1973 the accused demolished the public road of 420 feet in length and 15 to 20 feet in breadth which was passing by the said of complainant's land bearing Survey No. 104 and that portion was filled up by the accused with earth. With the result, the public road which existed for the last 50 years was converted so that it became a part of the respondent's land and further put obstructions of stones on both the sides in order to prevent persons using the road. It is almost stated that the accused thus obstructed the complainant from going to his land from April 23, 1973, and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1980Bom231
1. The appellant in First Appeal No. 139 of 1976 has preferred this application for review of the decision of the Taxing Officer under Section 5(2) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. The said appeal was filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Akola in Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1974 on 1-7-1976. The said appeal, after notice, on admission, to the respondents (present N. As.) was dismissed in motion by an order dated 5th July, 1977. Against that order, the appellant, present applicant, preferred a review application to this Court and affixed a five rupees stamp thereon. An office objection was raised that the applicant is liable to pay court fee under Schedule I, Article 8 as it is an application for review of Judgment and decree of this Court. It was contended before the Taxing Officer that in dismissing the appeal in limine, this Court has not passed any decree and what was sought to be revised was an order and not a judgment resulting in a decre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas514(Bom)
Smt. Sujata V. Manohar J.1. This is an application by the transferor-company for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation with the Mahadevi Investment Co. Ltd. which is the transferee-company. The scheme of amalgamation is at Ex. A to the petition. The transferor-company is a large public limited company having an authorised capital of Rs. 2 crores and a paid up share capital of Rs. 98 Lakhs. It is, however, a very closely held company having only 12 shareholders, although it is a public limited company. The transferee-company is a small company with a paid-up capital of only Rs. 5 lakhs. It is a new company incorporated only in 1978. The shareholders of the transferor-company are also some of the shareholder in the transferee-company. The shares of the transferee-company are, however, distributed among a larger number of shareholders than the transferor-company. The transferee-company's shares are listed on the stock exchange while the transferor-company's shares are not so listed. Unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1981]132ITR331(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is the karta of an HUF consisting of his wife, his son and his daughter. The HUF was assessed to income-tax for several years and so also under the provisions of the W.T. Act. The HUF of the petitioner owned 1/3rd share in the lands situated at Valnai, near Malad, Greater Bombay. The petitioner and his two brothers has inherited the lands at Valnai from their ancestors and each one of the three brothers held 1/3rd share in respect of the Valnai lands. The Valnai lands are situated in the low lying area adjoining the Malad Creek. The three brothers and their mother entered into an agreement of partnership on April 9, 1963, whereby the parties agreed to carry on business of land contractors and dealers in immovable properties, mining and quarrying undertakings. The partnership was registered in the name and style of M/s. Associated Lands and Development Corporation. As a part of the capital of the partnership, the petitioner and his two brothers brought into t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1980)82BOMLR69; (1980)ILLJ309Bom; 1979MhLJ828
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff was appointed as a temporary clerk under an order of the Collector of Sholapur dated 18-7-1959. In terms of clause 3 of the said order, the plaintiff's service were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason. By an order dated 20th March, 1969 the Collector did terminate his service. On appeal to the Commissioner, the said termination order was set aside on 13th August, 1969 for want of one month's prior notice. The plaintiff was then reinstated, but again discharged with effect from 22nd September, 1970, by notice dated 22nd August, 1970. The plaintiff challenged this order in appeal without success. He did not get any response to his revision application from the Government till he instituted the present suit on 9th June, 1973. 2. The plaintiff's case can be summed up in his own words by quoting paragraph 3 of his plaint, thus 'The plaintiff's services were again vindictively terminated by giving him one month's...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1979(39)FLR89]
M.L. Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated March 8, 1979 passed by respondent No. 1 appointing respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as Judges of the Labour Court. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Labour Law Practitioner's Association an Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, while petitioner No. 2 is a member of the said Association. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are Law Graduates and are in service of respondent No. 1 as Assistant Commissioners of Labour and were deputed on the date of the order under challenge to the Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board and the Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Limited, Bombay, respectively. 3. The Labour Courts are constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and that under the Industrial Disputes Act, Labour Courts are constituted under section 7 for adjudication of industrial disp...
Tag this Judgment!