Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1986CriLJ2075; 1986MhLJ879
P.B. Sawant, J.1. What is challenged in the present petition is an order of externment passed under Section 57(b) read with Section 59, Bombay Police Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The notice issued under Section 59 preceding the impugned order dt. 8th October 1985 states that the externee had been convicted of offences mentioned in the notice and further that he was likely again to engage himself in the commission of the offence similar to that for which he had been convicted. The externee was, therefore, called upon to remain present in the enquiry which was to be held under the said section. After the enquiry, the impugned order was passed on 15th Nov. 1985 externing the petitioner from the districts of Thane and Greater Bombay for a period of two years.2. The gravamen of the challenge to the impugned order is that it has been passed only on the ground that the externee had to his record two convictions for the offences under Section 66(b), Bombay Prohibition Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(1)BomCR740
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The facts of this petition indicate total inaction on the part of the respondent Government when it comes to the physically handicapped. This is so inspite of land mark legislations being enacted by the Parliament known as the Disabled Persons (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights And Full Involvement Act), 1995.2. Prior to two decades or so, a section of people who physically handicapped, i.e. either visually impaired or polio stricken or handicap suffered by virtue of various accidents have always been looked at as an insignificant and not useful segment of the population. In the last 20 year or so, a great stride has been achieved the world over by virtue of principles of upliftment implemented either through employment or self-sufficient vocations. This is an important development and new vistas in providing moral booster to this class of the society which has been mentally disturbed by virtue of the fact that they are suffering from certain handicaps, the ment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)72ITD1(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee, M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd., for the assessment year 1992-93, for which the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1992. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of chemicals, salt and detergents in its factories. This appeal arises out of the assessment order passed by the Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range I, Bombay, on 24-3-1995, under Section 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs. 76,84,31,176.2. The first ground is directed against the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(m) of the Income-tax Act, while computing the profits and gains of the business. The total claim of interest was Rs. 81,24,20,861, which was made in the revised return. The break-up of the claim is as below : Division 1,66,83,137 36,80,38,952 86,42,54,952(c) Gross Interest (a + b) 86,42,54,952(d) Less : Interest and out of borrowed funds 5,18,34,091(e) Net Interest claimed as 81,24,20,861 deduction In the assessment pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1959Bom320; (1959)61BOMLR220; ILR1959Bom952
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal raises several important questions concerning the provisions of the new Companies Act of 1956. The facts which are necessary to state are very few. The appellant, who is also the petitioner, is the managing agent of a limited company called the Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. On 15-11-1954 the Registrar of Companies called for an explanation from the Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., and the Registrar stated in his letter that it had been represented to him under Section 137(6) of the Indian Companies Act that the business of the company was carried on in fraud and he had therefore to call upon the company to furnish the information which he required which was set out in the latter part of the letter. On 15-4-1955 the Registrar made a report to the Central Government. This report was made under Section 137(5) of the old Companies Act and the report was that the affairs of the company were carried out in fraud of contributories and he was of the opinion that the affairs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1971)73BOMLR670
Deshmukh, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts, proceeded], So far as the main petition is concerned, it is contended that the provisions of Section 12 of the Nagpur University Act and Regulation No. 8 read with Regulations 45 and 54 clearly clothe the Vice-Chancellor with the power to refuse to send a particular topic or resolution to the agenda, It is incidentally alleged that the petitioner has not moved this Court out of any particular regard for the proper working of the University or the proper functioning of the Vice-Chancellor. He has a personal axe to grind, and a Committee has been appointed by the Vice-Chancellor to enquire into the complaints received against the petitioner as the Principal of a College. Even that reference has no particular relevance for deciding the very limited issue that arises, in this writ petition.2. According to me, the proposition that follows for decision is very simple and equally clear. Before I examine the provisions of the Nagpur Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR610; 2009(111)BomLR1874
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Heard. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard Senior Counsel for both sides.2. Both the Petitioners, in this Writ Petition, are Chartered Accountants by profession and are members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India set up under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Petitioner No. 1 is a Chartered Accountant since 1992 and a partner of M/s. Price Waterhouse & Co., a firm of Chartered Accountants, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Firm') while Petitioner No. 2 is a Chartered Accountant since 1972 and Senior Manager of the said Firm. This Firm was the statutory auditors of one Global Trust Bank Limited ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') for the year ended 31st March, 2003. The Petitioners, in their capacity as a partner and Senior Manager of the Firm, respectively, had conducted the statutory audit and signed the qualified audit report on 30th September, 2003 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1988(3)BomCR581a; (1987)89BOMLR485
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company') publishes the newspapers 'The Times of India' and 'Nav Bharat Times'. In 1983, company called Jansevak Karyalaya Ltd. (Jansevak) entered into negotiations with the company for printing and publishing editions of The Times of India and Nav Bharat Times from a press to be established at Lucknow. Three agreements dated June 4, 1983, July 30, 1983 and October 1, 1983 were entered into. In pursuance of the agreement, necessary applications were made under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. On October 17, 1983, the first edition of the The Times of India and Nav Bharat Times were issued from Lucknow. The City Magistrate at Lucknow commenced proceedings under the Press and Registration of Books Act it regard to complaints received that the provisions of that Act had been contravened. These proceedings were stayed in a writ petition filed by Jansevak in the High Court at Calcutta. The stay order wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2005(105)FLR995]; (2005)IILLJ1145Bom
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mr. A.D. Shetty with Ms. Rita Joshi, T. Shetty for petitioners and N.D. Buch with Ms. Bina Dholakia for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 be deleted forthwith.2. Rule. Ms. N.D. Buch waives service of notice of rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is heard finally. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted the paper book of the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer.4. The respondent No. 2 is an employee of the petitioner- company and member of the respondent No. 1. He was working as a Technician Grade-III (skilled category) in the Production Department of Plant-II. He was issued two different charge-sheets i.e. dated; March 19, 2003 and March 24, 2003. As his reply was not found satisfactory to the said charge-sheets, a joint enquiry was held and it was conducted by Mr. K.P. Gurav. The enquiry commenced from May, 2003 and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on January 28, 2004 and held...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR248; 2003(2)BomCR172; 2003(1)MhLj337
R.K. Batta, J. 1. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing and setting aside of order dated 31-5-1988 passed by respondent No. 3 Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Interim stay of the recovery of the amount under the said order was granted at the time of issuing of rule. 2. The case of the petitioners is that their father Narayandas Rajaram Asati was doing business of grain; respondent No. 2 was also doing business of grain and is also commission agent. There was some money dispute between the father of the petitioners and the respondent No. 2. The father of the respondent No. 2 was the Vice-Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Tiroda. According to the petitioners, the father of the respondent No. 2 taking advantage of his position as Vice-Chairman of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Tiroda, moved a resolution in the meeting of the market committee on 12-8-1982 by which the market committee resolved to recover the disputed amount between t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2003(97)FLR492]; (2003)ILLJ929Bom; 2003(1)MhLj643
A. B. Naik, J. FACTS IN BRIEF :1. This petition is filed challenging the orders passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad and Industrial Court Aurangabad. The petitioner was in employment at relevant time with respondent No. 1. Petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 1 on 26th October 1983 and was dismissed from service for proved misconduct. This dismissal led the filing of complaint by the petitioner under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1971) under item Nos. 1(a), (b), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV. The Labour Court after trial, allowed the said complaint in part by the order dated 11th August 1988. The learned judge of the Labour Court, Aurangabad declared that the respondent engaged in unfair labour practice, but instead of reinstatement, directed the respondent to pay compensation.2. The order passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad on August 11, 1988 came to be challenged by both the parti...
Tag this Judgment!