Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-30-1971
Reported in : AIR1971Bom365
Padhye, J.1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 having its registered office at Nagpur. It does banking business and is known as a Central Co-operative Bank within the meaning of that expression used in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The primary object of this Society is to finance the other Co-operative Societies in the district and is now covered by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as amended by the. Banking Laws (Application to Co-operative Societies) Act, 1965 and has been granted a licence under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The sole business of the petitioner-Society is that of banking that is to accept deposits from the public and lend the money to the Co-operative Societies in the district and to invest the deposits in other spheres. 2. The petitioner Society has framed its bye-laws according to which the Board of Directors of the Society consists of not more than 23 members and is entrusted wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-17-1971
Reported in : 1972MhLJ987; [1972]29STC74(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. This reference arises out of the references made by the Sales Tax Tribunal to this court in four cases. Though several questions were raised before the Sales Tax Tribunal and six of them have been referred for decision before the Division Bench in the sales tax references made to this court, the present reference by the Division Bench to the Full Bench is only upon one question, and that question is question No. (2) involved in all the references before the Division Bench. That question is as follows : 'Was the Tribunal right in holding that Explanation (II) to section 2(g), as was originally embodied in the Sales Tax Act, 1947, got restored on the statute-book because of the unconstitutionality of the substituted explanation enacted in the Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1949 ?' 2. Though one common question has been referred in all the references, each reference involves a different period of assessment as shown below : Reference No. Period involved. 17 of 1964. 1-1-1947 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-22-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Bom301; (1972)74BOMLR1; ILR1972Bom228
Mody, J.1. These are two appeals by the Union of India and the Regional Director, Company Law Board, Western Region, Bombay, against a common Judgment but two separate orders passed in Company Petitions Nos. 159 of 1970 and 161 of 1970, the first filed by Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. hereinafter referred to as 'Telco', and the second by the Central Bank of India Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the old Central Bank', whereby Mr. Justice Nain as the Companies Judge sanctioned under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, an arrangement in the nature of a scheme of amalgamation between the two companies, negativing the contentions of the appellants that the Court should not sanction the scheme without prior approval of the Central Government as required under Section 23(1) of the Monopolies and Restricted Trade Practices Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as 'the Monopolies Act'. We also propose to dispose of these two appeals by a common Judgment as both the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-01-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Bom316; (1972)74BOMLR259; ILR1972Bom1417; 1972MhLJ524
Vaidya, J.1. The above four petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against an order dated November 28, 1969 passed by the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in two applications filed under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The said two applications were filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 8 in special civil application No. 259 of 1970, who own the premises bearing No. 61. Clive Road, Danabunder Bombay No. 9 consisting of a ground floor and two upper floors. Municipal Application No. 174/M of 1966 was filed against 17 tenants, one of whom is the petitioner in special civil application No. 259 of 1970. He was respondent No. 259 of 1970. He was respondent No 15 in the application. Municipal application No. 175/M of 1966 was filed against 16 respondents mentioned therein, of whom the petitioners in special civil application Nos. 744, 745 and 750 were some of the respondents. They were described as occupants, who were not the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-21-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Bom199; (1971)73BOMLR729; 1972MhLJ92
ORDERGatne, J.1. This civil revision application has been directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Bombay on 16-2-1970 in Suit No. 1362 of 1960 on his file.2. The suit in question was filed by two plaintiffs, who happen to be the trustees of the Bhagoji Balooji Keer Public Religious and Charitable Trust.This trust was created under a Deed of Trust made by Bhagoji Balooji Keer on 15-5-1930. This Trust has been duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The properties included in this Trust admittedly include the property bearing Cadastral City Survey No. 657 situate at Mahim, Shortly after this Trust was made--in fact within seven days thereafter Bhagoji Keer acquired another property bearing Cadastral City Survey No. 656. This property is adjacent to the property bearing Cadastral City Survey No. 657 and some structures have been constructed thereon. One of them is 'Dnyan Mandir' now known as Shree C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-23-1971
Reported in : (1973)ILLJ213Bom
Vaidya, J.1. By this petition the petitioner, who was compulsorily retired under Rule 161 (c-1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, challenges on several grounds the validity of the order of compulsory retirement passed against him in May, 1971. It is not necessary to repeat the grounds which are similar to the grounds, which were urged challenging the validity of the said Rule 161 (c-1) and were overruled by us in Special Civil Application No. 1488 of 1971, decided on November 22, 1971. 2. To appreciate the additional grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner in the instant case, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts. The petitioner was born on August 22, 1915. He was initially recruited as a range forest officer in 1942 in the forest department of the then Bombay State. He served as such till 1959, when he was promoted to Maharashtra Forest Service Class II. He was further promoted to Class I of that service in 1964, and was working as divisional forest officer, Ghod Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-22-1971
Reported in : [1972]42CompCas72(Bom)
Mody, J. 1. These are two appeals by the Union of India and the Regional Director, Company Law Board, Western Region, Bombay, against a common judgment but two separate orders passed in Company Petitions Nos. 159 of 1970 and 161 of 1970, the first filed by Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'Telco', and the second by the Central Bank of India Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the old Central Bank', whereby Mr. Justice Nain as the company judge sanctioned under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, an arrangement in the nature of a scheme of amalgamation between the two companies, negativing the contentions of the appellants that the court should not sanction the scheme without prior approval of the Central Government as required under section 23(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as 'the Monopolies Act'. We also propose to dispose of these two appeals by a common judgment as both the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-27-1971
Reported in : [1973]43CompCas17(Bom)
Bhasme, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and is directed against the judgment and decree passed in the suit filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the appellants and respondent No. 3. The suit was for a permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 3 and its directors, servants and agents from allowing the appellants to act as directors of the respondent No. 3-company. A similar injunction was also claimed against the appellants restraining them from acting in any manner as the directors of the respondent No. 3 - company. 2. Respondent No. 3 is a public limited company registered under the Indian companies Act and carries on business, inter alia, and manufacturer of rayon yarn and has its registered office at Bombay. It is the plaintiffs' case that on April 9, 1969, the board of directors appointed the appellants as additional directors of respondent No. 3-company. The Board of directors consisted at that time of 8 members excluding those additionally appointed ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-22-1971
Reported in : [1972]42CompCas145(Bom)
Nain, J. 1. This is a petition under the provisions of sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Companies Act'), for sanctioning of a scheme for the amalgamation of the M.G. Investment & Industrial Company Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the petitioner company') with the New Shorrock Spinning and . (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-company'). The object of the petition is to obtain the sanction of this court to a scheme of amalgamation whereby the petitioner-company as transferor is to be amalgamated with the respondent-company as transferee. The respondent-company has its registered office at Ahmedabad. It has filed a petition under the provisions of sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, being Petition No. 3 of 1971 in the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad on 25th January, 1971, for sanctioning of the same scheme of amalgamation. The said petition is pending. The respondent-company has appeared before me and supported this pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-27-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Bom217; (1972)74BOMLR225; ILR1972Bom1040; 1972MhLJ483
Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance relating to the apportionment of compensation on compulsory acquisition of land between the intending vendor and the intending vendee whose contract has been frustrated by the act of acquisition by the State.2.The facts of this litigation are not in dispute except for the amount which has flowed from the purchaser to the buyer. We will give appropriate direction in respect of that dispute in due course. The undisputed position is that claimant No. 1 Mohammad Akil Khan was the owner of S. No. 4 measuring 34 Acres 35 Gunthas situate at village Garkheda in Aurangabad. He executed an agreement of sale relating to 30 acres out of this land in favour of claimant No. 2 Premraj Jawanmal Surna, who is respondent No. 1 in the present appeal. Under this agreement of sale, Ex. 57, admittedly Rs. 10,000/- have been received by the vendor - claimant No. 1. Under the contract the price fixed was Rupees 4,000/- per acre totalling upto Rup...
Tag this Judgment!