Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-07-1976
Reported in : [1977]110ITR227(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. By this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following three questions are referred for our determination :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the maternity homes and the Versova property named 'Abhay' were duly transferred by Dr. M. R. Divekar and his wife in favour of trustees under the indenture of the trust dated August 23, 1954 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from the running of the maternity homes was rightly assessed to tax in the hands of the trustees in the status of association of persons 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the salary of Rs. 7,500 paid by the assessee to Dr. Mrs. Nalini M. Divekar was allowable as an admissible deduction in the computation of the income of the assessee-A.O.P. ?' 2. These questions in this reference relate to the assessment year 1956-57 and they arise out of an indenture of trust created by Dr. Div...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-12-1976
Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR384
Vaidya, J.1. The above Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the wife, against the judgment, dated September 24, 1975, in F.A. No. 92 of 1975, conforming the judgment and decree dated February 6, 1975, passed by a Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, in her petition, under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree for judicial separation. In the petition, she had also prayed for an injunction restraining the husband and his servants and agents from entering flat No. 4, situate in Ganga Bhavan, 24th Road, Bandra, which is the matrimonial home of the couple, and for costs of the petition.2. The petitioner was married to the respondent on March 10, 1954, according to the Hindu Vedic Rites. It was a love marriage. She is enrolled as an advocate of this Court; and she has been practising in the Courts in Bombay. The allegations which she made in the petition against the husband may be briefly summarised as under:3. There is no issue of the marriage. The marriage with the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-25-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Bom91; 1977MhLJ246
Masodkab, J.1. Both these petitions arise out of the election proceedings filed by the respondent No. 1 before the District Judge, Nagpur under Section 428 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) read with the Rules framed under Section 420 (3) (xviii) and (xix) of the Act (hereinafter called the Rules).2. Respondent No. 1 the election-petitioner before the District Judge was the candidate to the election to elect a Councillor from Ward No. 31, called also Juna Motor stand Ward, of the City of Nagpur. There were other ten duly nominated candidates. The poll took place on 29-1-1975, counting on 31-1-1975 and the result was gazetted on 4th of February, 1975. At the counting the petitioner in the first petition Pyare Saheb, having secured 1132 votes being the highest in the number of votes polled, was declared elected. The election-petitioner polled next highest number of votes, being 803. The petitioner in another companion petition i.e., Special Civil Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-28-1976
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR549
Desai, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Vimadalal J. given on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. By his judgment and order dated February 24, 1976 he held that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the appellant plaintiff's suit and answered the preliminary issue in the negative and against the plaintiff and consequentially the suit was dismissed with costs.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit against the Bank of America, National Trust and Savings Association (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank of America'), a corporation incorporated in the United States of America. The plaint, however, goes on to describe the defendant further as having a principal place of business in India located at 18, Bruce Street, Bombay-1. The claim in the suit is a money claim for Rs. 5,40,000 (Rupee equivalent of 'U.S. Dollars 72,000) and for compensation and damages assessed by the plaintiff in respect of various items specified in para. 115 of the plaint. This claim for compe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-04-1976
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR364
Chandurkar, J.1. These petitions filed by the two petitioners, out of whom petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company and petitioner No. 2 is its Managing Director, arise out of four civil suits which are filed by the four employees of petitioner No. 1 company challenging the action of the employer in instituting disciplinary proceedings against them and appointing one Mr. Mahomed Hussein Shaikh, a retired Labour Court Judge, now at Poona, as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the employees.2. It is not disputed that the plaints in all the four suits filed by the four employees are identically worded and are based on identical facts. It is enough, therefore, to refer to the averments made in regular civil suit No. 8 of 1976 which was filed by one Mr. Chandrakant Dattatraya Janvekar out of which Special Civil Applications Nos. 2390 and 2391 of 1976 arise. The respondent-employee was originally suspended by an order dated August 9, 1975 by an order made by pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-13-1976
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
Decided on : Dec-07-1976
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
Decided on : Feb-10-1976
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR125
Madon, J.1. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed on the Original Side of this High Court, Bhatt J., by his judgment and order dated November 25/26, 1975 set aside the orders dated July 15, 1975 passed by the appellant prohibiting publication of articles, reports, letters and quotations, aggregating in all to eleven in number, intended for publication in the August 1975 issue of the monthly journal the 'Freedom First' edited by the respondent. Bhatt J., also issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellant, his officers, subordinates, servants, agents and successors-in-office to withdraw or cancel the said orders and further directing the appellant to permit the publication of the said articles, reports, letters and quotations and further directing the appellant, his officers, subordinates, servants and agents to forbear from acting in furtherance or implementation of the said orders. Bhatt J., further ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent the costs of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-14-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Bom193; (1980)82BOMLR212; 1977LabIC654; 1976MhLJ755
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The three questions referred to our Full Bench by the Division Bench are these;(1) Whether the Circulars, Orders or Resolutions or parts thereof laying down rules or principles of general application, which have to be observed in the recruitment or fixation of seniority of Government servants generally or a particular class of them, and which have been duly authenticated by a signature under the endorsement 'By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra' and intended to be applicable straightway are or amount to the rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, although the said Circulars, Orders or Resolutions do not expressly state that the same are made or issued in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and are not published in the Government Gazette?(2) Whether the said Circulars, Orders or Resolutions or parts of them as set out in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-23-1976
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR449
Chandurkar, J.1. This group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a common question relating to the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 (Act III of 1976)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which came into force on January 3, 1976. Some of these petitions have been filed on the Appellate Side of this Court at Bombay and some petitions which were originally filed before the Nagpur Bench were transferred to this Court for hearing and counsel appearing in these cases from Nagpur have also been heard. Similarly, Miscellaneous Petition No. 997 of 1975 which was originally filed on the Original Side of this Court challenging the Maharashtra Debt Relief Ordinance, 1975 (VII of 1975)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') has been referred to the Division Bench to be heard along with the other petitions on the appellate side and Mr. P.A. Mehta along with Mr. H.K. Shah appeared for the petitioners in that petition. After the Ordin...
Tag this Judgment!