Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-24-1982
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
Decided on : Apr-16-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Bom144; ILR1983Bom805
..... section 2(i)(j) of the patents act. 1970 ..... sections secured ..... patents page 125 307.)39 ..... 150 ..... sections are secured ..... section 15, 18, 19, 57, 59 and 78 of the patents act, 1970. section ..... patent ..... section ..... patents ..... act ..... section ..... secured ..... patentability on ..... act ..... 1970 ..... patents ..... patent ..... patents act, 1970 as under--section 2(1)(i ..... securing the two perforated pipe section ..... patents act, 1970 nor is it patentable under the said act.31. according to shri daruwalla no 'invention' lies in such mufflers.32. shri shah. on the other hand, has submitted that a patent ..... section 78(1) empowers the controller to correct clerical errors etc. none of these section ..... patent ..... section 25(1)(d) -- ..... section 25 of the patents act deals with the grounds of opposition. in regard to the prior publication, s. 25(1)(b) states:--'section ..... 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 ..... section 19(1) empowers the controller to direct the insertion of the other patent which is likely to be infringed,. unless the complete specification is amended to the satisfaction of the controller. so also section 57(1) empowers the specification of an application made by the appellant for the patent.section 59(1). no amendment of an application for a patent ..... act upon the specification. in the present case as already stated above, the invention is described in an obscure and ambiguous language, and on the ground also the patent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : May-27-1982
Reported in : (1984)8ITD57(Mum.)
1. These two appeals, one each by the assessee and the ITO, relate to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee is a non-resident company. It filed its returns of income for the first time for the assessment year 1971-72, inter alia, disclosing a loss of Rs. 7,272. The assessment was completed on 1-7-1975 determining the total income at Rs. 33,120. Return for the assessment year 1972-73 was filed on 10-2-1976 disclosing dividend income on 21,000 equity shares held by it in an Indian company by the name Albright Morarji & Pandit Ltd. During the course of proceedings for the assessment year 1972-73, the ITO came to learn that the assessee-company has sold its technical know-how relating to its designs, drawings, specifications, etc., and also certain patents to the Indian company under an agreement dated 10-2-1966 and that in consideration thereof the Indian company had allotted 21,000 equity shares of Rs. 50 each out of its initial issue of shares to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-30-1982
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
Decided on : Jul-22-1982
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
Decided on : Dec-10-1982
Reported in : [1982]135ITR756(Bom); (1984)ILLJ76Bom
1. The petitioners - Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre are registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The petitioners are running a well equipped and reputed hospital in Bombay and are also running a Research Centre in the hospital premises.2. The petitioners had employed about 900 workers in the Hospital and the Research Centre in the year 1979. The workers were members of a Trade Union by name 'Maharashtra Shramik Sabha' in the year 1978 and the Union had entered into a settlement dated January 18, 1978 with the employer under S. 18(1) read with S. 2(P) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said settlement was to remain effective up to January 18, 1981. The name of the Union was changed to Maharashtra Kamgar Sabha and the Union signed a fresh settlement on October 5, 1979 in Conciliation under S. 18(1) read with S. 2(P) of the Industrial Disputes Act with the employer. By this settlement the wage scales and other conditio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-07-1982
Reported in : (1983)3ITD677(Mum.)
1. These are two cross appeals from the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee, a registered firm, engaged in construction of buildings is eligible for deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated 24-4-1974. The partnership business is constructing buildings on a plot of land allotted to them by the Government of Maharashtra at Nariman Point. The building would consist of several shops, offices, basements and garages, which were sold to various persons on ownership basis.3. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1979-80, for which the accounting year was the year ended 30-6-1978, the assessee claimed that they were entitled to deduction under Section 80J. The ITO held that the assessee was not eligible for the deduction, while, on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decisions of the Bombay Tribunal Benches in some other cases held that the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-11-1982
Reported in : 1983(1)BomCR429; 1982CriLJ1454; 1982MhLJ822
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the original accused under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging of the order of conviction passed against the accused for the contravention of the provisions under S. 7 read with S. 3(d) of the drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (Act No. 21 of 1954) (herein after referred to as the 'Drugs Act'). The conviction was recorded on November 29, 1978 in Criminal case No. 82/S of 1978 and the same was unheld in the revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay by his judgment and order dated January 8, 1981 in Revision Applications No. 11 of 1979.2. The accused Amt. Kamatitrani J. Mangal is the sole properties of a shop called M/s. Breast Beauty Stores. His store was established in the year 1974. The accused is selling the article known as Bust Developer and while advertising this Bust Developer which is an instrument to be used for proper development of breasts of a woman, it is alleged t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-02-1982
Reported in : (1982)84BOMLR608
..... unreasonableness.163. in our case section 3(2)(k) of the act read with clause 37(1) of the scheme clearly indicates the purpose for which the levy is to be imposed. the purpose is to meet the costs of operating the scheme and to provide different benefits, facilities and amenities to the registered security guards as stated in the act and the scheme. so long as ..... one reported in gammon india ltd. v. union of india : (1974)illj489sc . in that case the provisions of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act, 1970, were under challenge amongst others on the ground that they contravened the provisions of article 14 and art 19(1)(g). while ..... viz. p.n. kaushai v. union of india : [1979]1scr122 which are as follows: (at p. 1473)unchannelled and arbitrary discretion is patently violative of the requirements of reasonableness in article 19 and of equality under art 14. reasonableness and arbitrariness are not abstractions and must be tested on the touchstone ..... remaining 12 agencies did not pay any over-time at all. as regards bonus, out of the 150 security guards who were examined as and by way of sample survey, only 24 out of them were receiving bonus at the rate ..... security guards as well as for payment of gratuity to them. while framing the rules both for provident fund and gratuity, the board has to take into consideration the provisions of the employees' provident fund and the miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 and the payment of gratuity act, 1972 respectively. the last clause 39 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-28-1982
Reported in : AIR1984Bom181; (1983)85BOMLR56; ILR1983Bom1222
Ginwala, J.1. The petitioner who are two the 8 partners of a firm which inter alia carries on the business of Printing and Lithography at Nagpur in the name and style of 'M/s Shic Raj Fine Arts Litho works, subbahs Road, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to the Undertaking) challenge the order passed by the Central Government (Respondent No.1) on 23-8-1989 under Section 18Aa(1)(b) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the I.d.r. Act) authorising the Development corporation of Vidarbha Ltd. (respondent No. 2) )(hereinafter referred top as the authorised person) to take over ther management of the said Industrial Undertaking for a period of three years as also the order passed by it on 29-8-1980 under Section 18FB of the I.D.r. Act suspending all contracts etc. to which the said undertaking all is a party of for a period of one year. The remaining six partners have come on record as interveners disputing the locus standi of the petitioners ot mai...
Tag this Judgment!