Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-13-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Bom99
..... constitution because the same had the protection of the constitutional umbrella erected by article 31-b of the constitution.9. act no. 21 of 1975 by section 2 makes a constitutional statement to the effect that the act was enacted 'for giving effect to the policy of the state towards securing the principles specified in clause (b) and clause (c) of article 39 of the constitution of india, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing declaration, for providing that the ..... t. on merits. though we dismiss all these petitions together, we make no order as to costs.237. prayer was made in special civil applications nos. 1918/75, 1949/75, 1694/75, 1970/75, 1948/75, 408/76, 2076/76, 1904/75, 1955/75, 1394/75, 154/ ..... confiscation and snatch of any further agriculture. the law being extra-territorial it is urged, the movement of trade on agriculture and/or of commerce, agricultural produce is patently affected. reliance is placed on atiabari tea co. v. state of assam : [1961]1scr809 , automobile transport co. v. state of rajas-than : [1963]1scr491 and the district collector ..... made a reference, firstly in the planning objectives and secondly, in the special recommendations with regard to the land reforms. though the act was passed in 1972, as we have already stated, it was made effective law on 19th of september 1975.150. the basis of this act and its operational area in the state has a clear objectively premise and has to be understood and can be best demonstrated if .....
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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : Feb-19-1976
Reported in : 1983(12)ELT216(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. Krishna Silicate and Glass Works Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') carried on business of manufacturing glass bottles of various sizes. Its factory was situate at Thana. In or about the year 1961 as a result of introduction of Item No. 23A in the First Schedule annexed to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') glass manufacturers were liable to pay excise duty. Item No. 23A is as under :- 23A. GLASS AND GLASSWARE------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tariff Rate of DutyItem No. Description of Goods Basic Special Excise------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 2 3 4------------------------------------------------------------------------------23A GLASS AND GLASSWARE -(1) Sheet glass and plate glass 10% ad 20% of the basicvalorem duty chargeable.(2) Laboratory Glassware 5% ad 10% of the basicvalorem duty chargeable(3) Glass shells, glass globe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-23-1976
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
Decided on : Mar-02-1976
Reported in : 1988(19)LC180(Bombay)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The firm of Messrs Mohanlal Devdanbhai Choksey (Petitioner No. 1) consisting of three partners, petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 carries on business of sale and purchase of gold and silver bullion. On January 10, 1969 the petitioners delivered to the proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') an intimation under Section 11J of the Act in respect of their shop at Sheikh Memon Street as being the place where the silver and gold bullion which were the goods notified under Section 11-I of the Act are being kept or stored by them. According to them between 14th and 23rd January 1969 they sold and delivered three consignments of silver bullion to a firm carrying on business at Nasik. On January 23, 1969 they effected sale of 22 bars of silver weighing in the aggregate 666.533 kgs. valued at Rs. 3,70,356/- to the said firm at Nasik. On the same day they obtained from the Competent Officer a transport voucher under Section 11K for transport of th...
Tag this Judgment!