Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1936Bom363; (1936)38BOMLR632; 165Ind.Cas.672
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr, Justice Black-well. The plaintiffs are suing the defendants as the sureties upon an administration bond, and the learned Judge dismissed the suit on a preliminary issue of limitation.2. The facts are not in dispute. On October 21, 1920, one Chunilal Motilal died intestate, leaving two minor sons, who are the plaintiffs. On July 14, 1921, leave was given to Nathalal Motilal to apply for letters of administration. On November 24, 1921, the said Nathalal Motilal, and the defendants, as sureties, entered into a bond, which is exhibit A, for payment to Pheroz Behramji Malabari, Registrar of this Court in its Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction, and William J. Howard, acting Assistant Prothonotary, their executors, administrators and assigns of the penal sum of Rs. 1,76,682, which was double the value at which the estate was sworn. The conditions of the bond which was in the usual form, were, first, that Nathalal Motilal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `Arbitration Act, 1996), the petitioner seeks to challenge an award dated 15th February, 2011 made by the Arbitral Tribunal dismissing the dispute filed by the petitioner under section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. Since 1986, petitioner was member of the respondent bank. For the period between 25th November, 2000 and March 2008, the petitioner was elected as the Chairman of respondent. In February 2008, once again the petitioner was elected as the director by mandate of the members of the respondent. 3. In the meeting of the respondent bank, on a querry raised by one of the members, it was decided to appoint M/s.Choksi and Choksi, Chartered Accountants to conduct an enquiry into the alleged irregularities of some accounts. Pursuant to the said resolution, M/s. Choksi and Choksi,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 26th February 2007 by which the learned arbitrator has rejected 10 claims out of 11 claims made by the petitioner and allowed 2 counter claims out of 4 counter claims made by the respondent no.1. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner herein was the original claimant whereas the respondent no.1 was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. 3. On 3rd October 2002, the petitioner was awarded the contract of Earth work for Electrical Sub-station building, construction of sub station building, Earth work in Karjat yard between Ch.27120M to 28000M and construction of approach road at Karjat vide letter of acceptance dated 3rd October 2002. The total cost of the work was Rs.62,15,000/-. The original stipulated date of completion was 3rd July 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1991(63)FLR336]; (1992)ILLJ660Bom
1. This appeal by the Insurance Corporation is directed against the judgment dated October 22, 1986, passed by the Insurance Court, directing the Corporation to refund the amount recovered towards the contribution during the period January 1, 1981 till June 30, 1981. 2. The Respondent-Company has been engaged in manufacture of Viscoso Rayon Yarn. Its employees were admitted to the benefits under the Insurance Scheme, since drawing the wages below Rs. 1,000/- as provided under sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The Company paid the contribution due for the period from January 1, 1981 to June 30, 1981. 3. The Company on September 2, 1981 with its employees arrived at a settlement in pursuance of the Industrial Disputes Act. As per the settlement the pay scales of the employees came to be revised with effect from January 1, 1981. As a result, the monthly wages of the employees exceeded to Rs. 1,000/- from that date. 4. According to the Company, its r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1925Bom485; (1925)27BOMLR973
Shah, Ag. C.J.1. It will be convenient in this case to state the few facts which have given rise to this appeal. The Divisional Forest Officer, Western Division, Thana, by a proclamation dated June 25. 1920, invited tenders with reference to certain forest coupes in the Thana District. The tenders were to be submitted on or before August 5, 1920, 1 P. M. The plaintiff submitted a tender in the standard form for several coupes, including coupe No. 4 in Block No. XIX before 1 P. M. on August 5. He offered to take up that particular coupe for Rs. 12,299. Immediately after, however, he discovered that he had committed a mistake in that the sum offered was not intended for that particular coupe but for coupe No. 5, which was near coupe No. 4. At 4-30 on that day the plaintiff's son sent a petition requesting the officer not to sanction the tender for coupe No. 4 as it was submitted under a mistake. The plaintiff 'and his son also sent a telegram' which reached the Divisional Forest Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR596; 2003(4)BomCR412; 2003(2)MhLj823
S. Radhakrishna, J.1. By this petition the petitioner employer is challenging part I of the Award dated 29-6-1994 and part II of the Award dated 23-2-1995 passed by the II Labour Court, Pune in the Reference (IDA) No. 219 of 1987. 2. By the aforesaid Part I Award, the II Labour Court has given a finding that the enquiry held by the petitioner employer qua the respondent workman was not fair, proper and legal. Subsequent thereto, by part II of the Award, the learned Presiding Officer of the II Labour Court, Pune has partly allowed the Reference and the dismissal order issued to the workman was set aside and the petitioner employer was directed to re-instate the respondent workman with continuity of service with 40% backwages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. 3. Being aggrieved by both the Awards, mentioned hereinabove, viz. Part I Award as well as Part II Award, present petition has been filed by the petitioner employer contending that both the Parts of the Aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral judgment: 1. By consent of parties as the facts and the issues involved in all the above three matters are identical were heard together finally and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. By these petitions filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act, 1996) the petitioner seeks to challenge orders dated 9th May, 2011 allowing application filed by the respondents under section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and directing the petitioner to withdraw the proceedings filed by the petitioner under section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short Multi State Act) and for referring them to the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bombay. 3. I shall deal with the facts in Arbitration Petition No. 935 of 2012. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these petitions are setout as under:- 4. The petitioner was originally registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1937Bom326
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council by the unsuccessful plaintiff in First Appeal No. 31 of 1932. The Main question is whether the property is of the appealable value. The ptantiff Claimed to the owner of immoveable properties in the Narwadari village of Ode in the Anand Taluka, under the will of one Desaibhai. In the first instance he filed his suit in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, Umreth, claiming a declaration that he is the owner of various properties specified in the plaint, an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession, possession of specified properties from the defendants, one-third share in certain properties sold by the defendants and Rs. 2,400 for mesne profits for three years of the properties in the possession of the defendants. The suit was valued as follows: Rs. 130 for the declaration and injunction, Rs. 333 for plaintiff's share in. the price of the properties sold, Rs. 2,40...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1984]55CompCas281(Bom)
1. The present Company Application No. 7 of 1982 arises out of summons for directions dated 14th January, 1982, for the following orders :'(a) The non-compliance of the order of this Hon'ble court dated 26th June, 1981, passed in Company Application No. 173 of 1981, be condoned. (b) That the order of this Hon'ble court dated 26th June, 1981, passed Company Application No. 173 of 1981 be vacated. (c) In the alternative to (b) above, the operation of the order dated 26th June, 1981, passed in Company Application No. 173 of 1981 be stayed until further orders of this Hon'ble court. (d) In the alternative to prayers (b) and (c) above, liberty be granted to the applicants to propound a fresh scheme of reconstruction under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, within three months or within such time as this Hon'ble court deems fit, of the finalisation of the proposal for reconstruction assistance made by the Industrial Reconstruction Corporation of India Ltd.'2. In support of this summons,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1923)25BOMLR908
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay on Section question referred to it under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1918. The facts out of which the appeal has arisen are shortly as follows:-For the official year 1919-1920 the appellant Company was assessed by the Collector of Income Tax, on a sum of Rs. 61, 84, 848, alleged to be income earned in the previous year, 1918-1919. The Company claimed to deduct from this assessment a sum of 28 lacs of rupees, paid by it to certain underwriters on an issue of 7,00,000 preference shares of the Company of Rs. 100 each, as expenditure incurred by the Company for the purpose of making profits in its business. By Section 9, Sub-section 1, of this Act it was provided that the tax (i.e., the income tax ) shall be payable by an assessee under the head of 'Income derived from business, 'in respect of the profits of any business carried on by the taxpayer, and by Sub-section 2(ix), it is further provided 'tha...
Tag this Judgment!