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!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1977]108ITR616(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference under section section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the Tribunal's finding that the Ferreira Mansion was actually constructed and owned by Dr. Ferreira, the assessee could be assessed in respect of the income thereof for the relevant accounting years in view of the consent decree dated 11th April, 1960 ?' 2. Although the statement of case refers to four assessment years, we are really concerned with the two years 1956-57 to 1957-58 only, the corresponding accounting period being the years ended on 31st March, 1956, and 31st March, 1957, respectively. 3. The assessee is one Mrs. Maltida Ferreira (nee Fonseca). On 21st March, 1923, the assessee's father settled certain properties in trust. The trustees were directed to collect all the rents and profits and to pay therefrom all the costs incidental to the collection thereof and to pay the net i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1980)82BOMLR355
Bharucha, J.1. This is a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called 'the said Act') asking that the arbitration agreement between the parties be filed in Court and that the dispute between the parties be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Court.2. On August 28, 1973 an agreement was entered into between the parties which recited that the plaintiffs had offered to provide technical know-how and assistance to the defendants for the procurement of equipment and its installation and commission and to supply technical data and process details for the manufacture by the defendants of containers and covers for batteries. The said agreement provided that the entire production of containers and covers by the defendants would be purchased by the plaintiffs upon the terms and conditions therein contained. The agreement was, in the first instance, to remain in force for ten years. Clause 6 of the said agreement provided as under:In the event of any dispute...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1981)83BOMLR75; 1981MhLJ93
Madon, J.1. The circumstances which led to this Special Bench being constituted are that on September 10, 1980 a Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Madon and Shah JJ., while hearing an Appeal, namely, Appeal No. 308 of 1979 Filmistan Private Limited v, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, against the judgment and order of Pendse J., sitting singly on the Original Side, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, entertained a doubt as to the competency of the said Appeal. Accordingly, they directed the papers in the said Appeal to be placed before the Chief Justice for him to constitute a larger Bench, if he so thought fit, for the determination of the question whether the said Appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this High Court. Six days later, that is, on September 16, 1980, while another Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Madon and Kania JJ., were taking admissions in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1983Bom36; (1982)84BOMLR246
Chandurkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge rejecting petition filed by the appellants for enforcement of a foreign award u/s. 6 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act').2. It is not necessary for the purpose of the appeal to refer to the details of the transactions in respect of which a contract in writing was entered into on 16th Sept. 1976 between the appellants and the respondents through the brokers Marshall Produce Brokers Co. Pvt. Ltd., under which the respondents agreed to ship to the appellants 250 metric tons of ground-nut extractions of the quality specified in the contract at a price of ... 99 per tonne. The delivery was to be made to the petitioners at Bombay in Jan./Feb. 1977 at the appellants' option. One of the terms of the contract is made under the terms and conditions effective at the date of the Grain And Feed Trade Association (GAFTA), Baltic Exchange Chambers,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1982Bom341; 2(1982)DMC204
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff Dr. Abdur Rahim under married Smt. Padma, respondent-defendant in the United Kingdom on 5th May 1966. At the time of marriage plaintiff Abdur Rahim was a Mohainmedan where as respondent Padma was a Hindu. Both of them were Indian citizens. Their domicile was India. Both of then held Indian passports. On 6th of May 1965 the plaintiff and the defendant went to the office of Registrar of Marriages at Weymouth. Before that a necessary notice of intention to marry was already given. There after on 6th May 1966 the parties went through the marriage ceremony before the Registrar and the said marriage was duly registered. The marriage certificate relating to this marriage duly authenticated and certified copy is also on record. From this certificate it appears that the marriage Act, 1949. After this marriage birth of Shabnam took place on 18th of May 1957. Of Shama on 19-11-68. Thereafter on 4th Apr., 1969 the plaintiff and the defendant with their c...
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 : AIR1983Bom144; ILR1983Bom805
ORDER1. The opponents have preferred this appeal against the order and decision dated 5th July, 1980 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, dismissing the opposition to the grant of patent and directing the Complete Specification to be amended as indicated in the said order.2. On 28-3-1971 one Noshir Edulji Pochkhanawalla made an application numbered 130620 for registration of a Patent for an invention relating to 'Improvement in or relating to Mufflers or Exhaust Silencers for Internal Combustion Engines' along with provisional specifications. On 14-6-71 the applicant filed complete specifications. The application was accepted by the Controller of Patents and the acceptance was notified in the Gazette of India dated 19-8-1972. The petitioners filed notice of opposition under S. 25 of the Patents Act, 1970. On 10-2-1973 the applicant filed his reply to the Notice of Opposition and on 26-2-1973 the applicant filed his reply -- Statement. On or about 21st June 1973 the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)85BOMLR106; 1983MhLJ607
ORDER1. Is this Court to be the clearing house for the export of Indian children transported by devious means to his State from other States for the avowed purpose of being handed over in foreign adoption? That, bluntly put, is virtually the common question I must answer in these petitions. I do so by this common judgment.2. The age of the minors offered for foreign adoption in these petitions range from 6 months to 8 years, five of them being under one year. All these children are born and are said to be abandoned in States other than the State of Maharashtra and were left in the care of institutions in those States, to wit, Karnataka, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh, except in Miscellaneous Petition NO. 86 of 1982 where the minor is said to have been handed over at Andhra Pradesh to one Sister Mary Ella Stewart during he short visit to that State. Soon thereafter these institutions transferred these children ostensibly to certain institutions in Maharashtra, to wit, Norwegina Free Evangel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1985(2)BomCR303
V.V. Vaze, J.1. Factory premises at 164, Tulsi Pipe Road, Matunga, Bombay-400 016, and two shops being Nos. 16 and 5-A on the ground floor of Hari Niwas abutting Lady Jamshedji Road, Mahim, Bombay, have been the subject matter of the present long drawn litigation. The premises at Tulsi Pipe Road, 18' x 36' formerly belonged to one Devidas and having been designed as a shed are used mainly as a factory rather than as a shop. This shed changed hands and when D. Rustom Ltd. were in possession of the same, Namdev Vishnu Kinalekar (Namdev) the plaintiff, took the premises sometime in 1951-52 on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. Namdev who had a mechanic's background had a large family of five sons and two daughters. He bought some shearing, metal cutting, drilling, binding machines, some hand presses, a spray printing machine, an electric over and set up a factory for the purposes manufacturing electrical equipments. The factory was well equipped with other accessories like vices, jacks, blowers...
Tag this Judgment!