Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1967]37CompCas171(Bom)
1. This petition has been filed by M/s.Nanavati & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-company) under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Order No.12(41)- CL.VI/63 dated 20th April, 1964 (as amended by an order of even number dated 13th May, 1965), being Ex. F to the petition passed by the Company Law Board constituted by the Government of India whereby certain terms and conditions of the sole distributorship agreement dated 28th November, 1961, and entered into by J.K.Chemicals Ltd. (5th respondent) with the petitioner-company have been varied under section 294(5)(c) of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The facts giving rise to the passing of the impugned order mentioned above may be stated : The 5th respondent-company (J.K.Chemicals Ltd.) is a public limited company manufacturing certain chemical products including sodium hydro-sulphite, caustic soda lye, chlorine and its by-products, etc. the petitioner-company, which is a private limited co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR695
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These two writ petitions which challenge the Notification of the State Government dated 26th June, 1991 issued under sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and its further consequential notification dated the same issued under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 20 of the said Act can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment. However, reference to the parties in this judgment would be as in the Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 except where W.P. No. 243 of 1991 is particularly considered and referred to.2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 are that the petitioner is the Chair-person of the South Planning and Development Authority and in Writ Petition No. 243 of 1991, the petitioner is the Goa Citizens League, which holds out itself as a Special activist organisation formed with a view to promote social, economic and educational cultural and political interests for achieving the progress and welfare of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1985Bom136; 1985(1)BomCR108; (1983)86BOMLR506; 1985MhLJ54
Dharmadhikari J.1. the petitioner had applied for an appointment to the post of Honorary Paediatruician in the District Hospital at Dhule in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 27th February 1984. According to him, the State of Maharashtra had constituted a Selection Board as per the rules contained in the Maharashtra Honorary Medical Officers ( Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1976. The Selection Board scrutinised the applications of three candidates viz. the petitioners, respondent No.2 Dr. Mudholkar and one Dr. Vikas Sonawane. They were also called for interview on 30th April 1984. The petitioner was selected by the said Selection Board and was thereafter appointed to the said post, vide appointment letter, sated 12th April 1984. He joined his duties as an Additional Honorary Medical Officer on 13th April 1984. Thereafter he received another letter from the Government of Maharashtra, dated 17th April 1984, informing him that in view o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : II(1998)DMC569
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Mr. Deshpande for the petitioner-original accused, Mr. Thakur, Asstt. Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra and Mr. R.M. Agrawal for the Union of India and the learned Attorney-General.2. This is a Revision against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1986, decided on 21st June, 1987 under which, he confirmed the Judgment and Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 3, Pune, on 13th February, 1986 in Regular Criminal Case No. 319 of 1984. Under the impugned Judgments, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. This Revision was admitted on 23rd June, 1987. By an order dated 30...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1954CriLJ366
ORDER1. This order shall govern the disposal of the following Miscellaneous Criminal Cases:No. 35/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Dr. S.M. Hasan and Ors.No. 36/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Shri Abhilas-Chandra.No. 37/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Dr. N.B. Khare and Ors.No. 38/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Swami K.N. Sokhta and Anr.No. 39/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Shri R.K. Shukla and Ors.No. 50/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Thakur Pyarelal Singh and Anr.No. 48/53: In re Shri Ramgopal Maheshwari and Anr.2. Shri M. V. Rajwade, I.A.S., who is the petitioner in the first six cases is the Deputy Commissioner, Durg. The last case was registered on a petition filed by the Deputy Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Nagpur. These petitions were filed under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, for taking action against the alleged contemners in respect of certain publications.3. Respondents in these cases are the authors and/or publishers of the impugned articles.(A) The authors concerned are-(1) Dr. S....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1974]94ITR34(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The question involved in this petition is whether the Income-tax Officer (the respondent) had jurisdiction to initiate proceeding for reopening the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1950-51, under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), and whether such initiation of proceedings is justified having regard to the conditions precedent to be fulfilled before the provisions of the said section can be attracted. 2. The petitioner was an employee of the Dalmia Cement and Paper Marketing Co, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). It was his case before the authority who assessed him for income-tax for the assessment year 1950-51 that by a letter, dated October 11, 1943, he was appointed to look after the Bombay officer organisation of the company at the remuneration of Rs. 4,000 per month, free of tax and with the other benefits of the and prerequisites as therein provided. It was one of the terms of the ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1973Bom171; (1973)75BOMLR76; ILR1973Bom736
K.K. Desai, J. 1. The petitioner's case is that in pursuance of a call given therefor by the Peasant's and Workers' Party a Morcha of a few thousand persons, including women, was organised on September 6, 1971 near the Government Godown at Vairga village. On that occasion incidents of violence and firing by police took place. By a notification dated 18th November, 1971 Shri P. G. Karnik, District Judge, Aurangabad, was under the Commissioners of Inquiry Act appointed a Commission on Inquiry to inquire into and report on :(1) the incidents of violence leading to the firing by the police; and (2) to determine whether firing was justified or not and whether excessive or otherwise.2. The Commission appears to have held its first sitting on 24th January, 1972. On behalf of the Peasants' Party their advocate then submitted that having regard to the nature of the terms of reference the Commission should first record the evidence of witnesses for the police in connection with the incidents of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1957)59BOMLR769
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. A notification was issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act (Act LX of 1952). The notification set up a Commission consisting of Mr. Justice Tendolkar, N.R. Modi and S.C. Chaudhuri. It gave reasons for the appointment of the Commission and set out the matters into which the Commission was to inquire and make a report. The notification is in the following terms :-New Delhi, the 11th December 1956S.R.0. 2993-Whereas it has been made to appear to the Central Government that-(1) a largo number of companies and some firms were promoted, and/or controlled by Sarvashri Ramkrishna Dalmia, Jaidayal Dalmia, Shanti Prasad Jain, Sriyans Prasad Jain, Shital Prasad Jain or some on e or more of them and by others being either relatives or employees of the said person or persons, closely connected with the said persons ;(2) large amounts were subscribed by the investing public in the shares of some of these companies ;(3) there have boon gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR1106; (1959)IILLJ599Bom
Datar, J.(1) The appellant before us was originally a Sanitary Inspector in the Municipal Committee of Nagpur. A departmental enquiry was started against him and on the 12th of December 1949 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The Enquiry Officer held that the appellant was guilty of the charges for which the enquiry had been started but recommended that as there were extenuating circumstances, only a warning be given to the appellant by way of punishment. the officer in charge of the Municipal Committee, however, took a different view on the question of punishment to be awarded. To the appellant and accordingly passed an order services. It was necessary under the rules that this order of the Officer in Charge had to be approved of by the Board of Revenue. It appears that the Board of Revenue also approved of this order and the same was communicated to the appellant on the 27th of April 1951.(2) The appellant thereafter approached this Court by a special application under the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. All the writ petitions are heard by consent as assigned expressly. The issues are common and, therefore, this concluding common decision. Introduction of the controversy 2. The constitutional reservation policy always put the respective State Government in imbroglio. It is going to last long, as no one in the present scenario or otherwise is in frame of mind to compromise. Having once granted the constitutionally recognized reservation in diverse areas including in the state employment, it's total abolition is unwarrantable and without a solution. The legitimate rights once created and settled, since so many years, just cannot be taken away by a stroke of pen. It is not the case of grant of the reservation in service for the first time but question is of its continuance or discontinuance in part or full. Therefore, the crux of the matter is whether existing reservation policy, in the State employment, can be taken away by declaring such Reservation Statute and the...
Tag this Judgment!