Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1967)69BOMLR326; 1967MhLJ694
Tarkunde, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded.] A preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition was taken be-for me by Mr. Chagla on behalf of respondents Nos. 6 to 8. Respondent No. 8 is the Fourth Baronet; respondent No. 6 is his minor son; and respondent No. 7 is his mother, being the second wife of the Third Baronet. Mr. Chagla urged that this petition is not maintainable because the Repealing Act, under which the petition is filed, is itself ultra vires the Bombay State Legislature. The Act is ultra vires, according to Mr. Chagla, because it violates Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution and also because it was beyond the legislative competence of the Bombay State Legislature to pass such an Act. Mr. Chagla expressly told me that respondents Nos. 6 to 8 do not challenge the Act on the ground that it violates Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, the reason being that respondents Nos. 6 to 8 are not citizens of India. I may add that, if respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1973Bom18; (1972)74BOMLR514; 1972MhLJ798
ORDER1. The Plaintiff Mrs. Sahida Ismail has filed this suit in this Court in its Admiralty and Vice-admiralty Jurisdiction. In this suit, the steamship Petko R. Salvejkov is made defendant No.1; the Indian Agents of the owners of the ship Messrs. J.M.Baxi & Co. are made defendant No.2 and the consignees of the cargo in Colombo are made defendant No.3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have taken out the present notice of motion for an order that the warrant for arrest issued by this Court on June 8, 1971 be superseded and set aside: that the guarantee executed by the second defendants in favour of the Admiralty Registrar on June 8, 1971 be cancelled and returned to the second defendants and that it may be held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in exercise of its admiralty and vice admiralty jurisdiction.2. The facts on the basis of which the notice of motion is argued are not as all in controversy. On December 17, 1970 the plaintiff consigned a cargo of 569 Metric Tonnes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1975]45CompCas613(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. This is a judges summons dated 12th January, 1972, taken out by the applicants (the Union of India) seeking permission or leave of this court to make or cause to be made investigations into the possibility of restarting the industrial undertaking of the 1st respondent (the Seksaria Cotton Mills Ltd. (in liquidation) in the interest of the general public and particularly in the interest of productions of cotton textiles, under section 15A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, as amended by the Amending Act No. 72 of 1971. 2. The fact giving rise to the application by way of judge's summons may be stated : The Seksaria Cotton Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1st respondent-company'), a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, VII of 1913, used to run textile mills situate at Delise Road, Parel, Bombay. It ceased production and actually stopped its business since about 18th October, 1967. On a creditor's petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1974]94ITR616(Bom)
Deshpande, J. 1. Facts giving rise to this application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are few and simple, though the case appears to involve great hardship and consequently calls for close scrutiny and analysis. The petitioner (assessee) was carrying on business of transporting iced fishes, mangoes and other goods by sea from Konkan ports to Bombay. He was the owner of a launch 'Lakshmi'. On 24th April, 1961, the Central Excise authorities seized 4,999 biscuits of gold weighing 10 tolas each from the said vessel. The Collector of Central Excise investigated the case and ultimately confiscated the gold so seized by order dated September 18, 1961. The assessee and some others were then tried before the Special Judicial and Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, for offences under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1947. At the conclusion of the trial the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR581
Rege, J.1. This is a petition by certain shareholders of the National Rayon Corporation Limited (respondent No. 7) for a writ of mandamus for withdrawing or cancelling the order dated June 25, 1973 made by the Company Law Board (respondent No. 2) appointing respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as Government Directors for one year from June 30, 1973 on the Board of Directors of respondent No. 7 company and for declaring the same to be void and inoperative. They have also asked for a further writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the said impugned order and also for a declaration that certain directors mentioned in prayer (c) had been duly elected at the annual general meeting of respondent No. 7 company held on May 11, 1973 and that they were entitled to act as Directors of respondent No. 7 company.2. The short facts leading to this petition may be stated as follows:3. Respondent No. 7 company, namely, the National Rayon Corporation Ltd., was incorporated in 1946. The present subscribed shar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR37
Mukhi, J.1. This writ petition raises an important question of law as to whether the cost of packing of excisable goods can be included for the purpose of determining the value thereof under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Now, we should have thought that this question has already been determined and concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Union v. Mansingka Industries (1974) 77 Bom. L.R. 663.3. It requires to be noticed that in that judgment reference is made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. : 1973ECR60(SC) , in which the scope and content of Section 4 of the Act was considered.4. The learned Counsel for the respondents has, however, contended that these decisions did not conclude the questions which arise in the petition before us. He added that there were certain contentions which did not arise in previous eases.5. It will, therefore, be necessary to examine the ratio of these...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1976Bom70; 1975MhLJ746
ORDER1. The respondent -landlord who is a minor through his father guardian filed an application under Clause 13 (3) (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. 1949, referred to hereinafter as the Rent Control Order contending that his father wants to revive his cloth business to set up an cloth shop in the premises occupied by the petitioner- tenant. In the application he further contended that the Landlord and his father also wants to reside in the portion of the premises. According to the landlord, at present he is residing in a rent house and he has no house of his own in the city of Nagpur. Therefore, he needs this house for his bona fide occupation.2. This application was resisted by the petitioner tenant. He contended that the applicant's father was not doing any cloth business at any time and the application filed is not bona fide. He further contended that in fact one of the blocks has fallen vacant. In that block the applicant's father started a shop o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1977Bom53; (1976)78BOMLR262
Vaidya, J.1. The above First Appeal is filed by the Insurer M/s. Marine and General Insurance Co., Ltd., Appellant No. 1, the insured owner of the motor lorry, bearing No. MRT 8615 Minu D. Mehta -- Partner, Cawasji Behramji and Co., Appellant No. 2 and the said partnership firm, Appellant No. 3, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the award passed against them in the sum of Rs. l,43,400/- on an application for compensation made to the Tribunal by Respondent Dr. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan.2. By the award a sum of Rupees 500/- was also awarded to Smt. Malati M. Deshmukh, nurse and a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded as costs to Dr. Nayan. It is not in dispute that the appeal filed by the Insurance Co. against the award passed in favour of Smt. Malati M. Deshmukh for Rs. 500/- and costs at Rs. 100/- has been dismissed summarily on August 14, 1975.3. The award In favour of Dr. Nayan is challenged on two grounds by the appellants; Firstly, on the ground that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR634; [1977]47CompCas79(Bom)
Mridul, J.1. This judge's summons had been taken out by the official liquidator of Alcock Ashdown and Company Ltd. (in liquidation), for a direction that Killick Nixon Ltd., respondent to the judge's summons, be ordered and decreed to pay to the official liquidator a sum of Rs. 28,295.41 with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date hereof till payment. The claim of the official liquidator against Killick Nixon Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the respondent') is in respect of book debts payable by the respondent to said Alcock Ashdown & Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). 2. On 24th April, 1971, Gleitlager (India) Private Ltd. presented a winding-up petition to this court, inter alia, for an order that the company be wound up by the under its directions under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. On the said petition an order for winding up was made by Nain, J. on 10th January, 1972. By the said order the official liquidator was appointed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1977Bom99
Masodkar, J. 1. These 2661 cases have clogged the Court's corridors for considerable time, challenging the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act No. 21 of 1975) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Amendment Act, 1975 (Act No. 47 of 1975) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Act No. 2 of 1976).2. The petitioners raised almost Common questions and the petitions can be decided by an order indicating separate points urged in support of different petitioners' claims. It is assumed and not disputed that the petitioner in each petition is aggrieved by the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling On Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended and in issue.3. At the outset it must be stated that in Special Ci...
Tag this Judgment!