Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1969Bom401; (1969)71BOMLR214; ILR1969Bom864; 1968MhLJ797
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India owning and administering the Central Railway as well as the South Eastern Railway. A large part of the fact is not in dispute. The plaintiff no. 1 Messrs, Kalinga Textiles Private Limited, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act having their office at Rajgangpur, admittedly booked 100 bales of cotton from Akola on the Central Railway for being delivered at Rajgangpur on the South-Eastern Railway. The railway receipt in that behalf was no. 9208/11 dated 2-6-1957. A complete wagon was hired and allotted for that purpose and it started with the goods train on the same day. The evidence in the case shows, and it is not now in dispute, that fire took place first at Khapri station on 4-2-1957 and the wagon in which the plaintiff no. 1's cotton bales were loaded was set on fire. After some half-hearted attempts to find out the cause of the fire and to try to extinguish it, a decision was taken by the Assistant Station Master, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1972)74BOMLR320; 1972MhLJ618
Vaidya, JJ.1. This petition raises a difficult question under the Bombay Civil Services Rules, as amended by the Bombay Civil Services (7th Amendment) Rules, 1971.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated June 9, 1971 and the order dated July 21, 1971 purporting to have been passed by the Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra State, under the said Amendment Rules of 1971 compulsorily retiring the petitioner 'from the date of expiry of three months' period from the date of receipt of the notice' dated July 21, 1971.3. The petitioner was born on December 24, 1918. He was commissioned as an Officer in the Indian Army and after his service of 4 years he was relieved from the Army in the year 1946. He was then selected for training at the Police Training Centre at Nasik. After completion of the training, he was appointed as a Sub Inspector of Police at Poona in the year 1948. He was confirmed in that post with effect from July 1, 1949. On July 3, 1968 he was promoted to officiate as I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1972)74BOMLR523; 1972MhLJ841
Deshpande, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order passed by the State Government against the petitioner on June 18, 1971 informing him that the Government has decided to retire him prematurely in public interest in view of his attaining the age of 50 years. Under the said order he was advised to retire voluntarily by giving three months' notice in terms of the Bombay Civil Services (Seventh Amendment) Rules of 1971. He was also informed that in the event of his not choosing to retire voluntarily, Government itself would issue necessary order, directing his retirement.2. This Special Civil Application was filed in this Court on July 19, 1971 and rule was granted on July 26, 1971. During the pendency of this Special Civil Application, another notice dated August 6, 1971 was served on him retiring him from service in public interest. The petitioner made an application soliciting leave to amend the petition so as to challenge also the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1973]91ITR566(Bom)
Kantawala, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question that is referred for our determination is : 'Whether the hiring by M/s. Pure Products and Madhu Canning Ltd. to the assessee-company of a godown belonging to and used by the former for its business purposes amounted to 'transfer' to the latter within the meaning of the phrase 'the transfer to a new business of building previously used in any other business' occurring in section 15C (2) (i) /' 2. The question that is referred to us relates to the period 1958-59 and 1959-60, corresponding to the accounting years ending 30th September of 1957 and 1958, respectively. The assessee-company was incorporated in October, 1952, with the object of carrying on the business of sale and manufacture of gelatin capsules, etc. It took on monthly lease a huge compound pertaining to and used for its business by Messers. Pure Products & Madhu Canning Ltd. on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. The facto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1989Bom111; (1988)90BOMLR219
Shah, J.1. IN Writ Pent. No. 1876 of 1984 Dr. Harihar Bhakre v. Chancellor of Nagpur University which was decided on Dec. 7 (reported in 1985 LIC 1481), by a Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur (Paunikar & Deshpande, JJ). Wherein the legality of the employment notice issued by the Nagpur University under s. 57(4) (a) of the Nagpur University Act , 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ') vis--vis reservation for the backward classes was under challenge, amongst various other points involved in the said petition. The Division Bench took the classes in respect of the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers adverted was not necessary, but that it is enough, if the posts reserved are mentioned numerically out of the total posts to be filled in. the Division Bench further held that having regard to the provisions of S. 57 (4) (d) and (e) such reservation could be made by the Executive Council under S. 57 (4)(e) even after the selection by the Selection committee on merit under S. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(2)BomCR232; 1990CriLJ615; 1989MhLJ791
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Ishwarlal Gunderia, a resident of Khamgaon, District Buldana, has by this Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('the COFEPOSA Act') against his son-in-law Haren Choksey - a dealer in imported cars.2. The detenu is a permanent resident of Bombay. The order of detention dated 30th January, 1989 is served on the detenu on 3rd February, 1989. This petition filed on 1st March, 1989, came up for preliminary hearing on 3rd March, 1989 on which date rule returnable on 17th April, 1989 was issued. In the return filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, preliminary objection has been raised - to which our attention was drawn before the hearing on merits commenced - that Nagpur Bench should not entertain this petition since neither a seat of the detaining authority - the Joint Secretary to the Government, o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR695
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These two writ petitions which challenge the Notification of the State Government dated 26th June, 1991 issued under sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and its further consequential notification dated the same issued under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 20 of the said Act can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment. However, reference to the parties in this judgment would be as in the Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 except where W.P. No. 243 of 1991 is particularly considered and referred to.2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 are that the petitioner is the Chair-person of the South Planning and Development Authority and in Writ Petition No. 243 of 1991, the petitioner is the Goa Citizens League, which holds out itself as a Special activist organisation formed with a view to promote social, economic and educational cultural and political interests for achieving the progress and welfare of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)112CTR(Bom)356; [1994]206ITR727(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the claim of development rebate on the cost of meters installed by the assessee company at the residential or office premises of its consumers, was not at variance with the provisions of section 33(6) of the Act ?' 2. The assessee is an electric supply undertaking and its business is to supply electrical energy to its consumers. For the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer determined the development rebate admissible to the assessee at Rs. 8,01,917 and allowed Rs. 5,59,744 against the total income available for the purpose. The development rebate determined by the Income-tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 61,155 relatable to the cost of me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(3)BomCR658
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of the parties.2. These two writ petitions have brought in challenge the provisions of the Maharashtra Ordinance No. 17 of 1995, namely, the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) (Temporary Amendment) Ordinance, 1995. By an amendment, the petitioners have also brought in challenge the provisions of the Maharashtra Act No. 9 of 1996, namely, the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) (Temporary Amendment) Act, 1996, which makes similar provisions to that of Ordinance No. 17 of 1995.3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5484 of 1995 is the Chairman of Jintur Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jintur and was the Chairman of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bombay, for several years. He is also the Member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elected on Congress ticket and alleges that since the new Government came into power after the 1995 elections, several attempts a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)ALLMR761; 1998(4)BomCR100
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, for a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records relating to the Judgement and Order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, North Zone, bearing No. 1/48/65-RES/(C)-193/Goa/ARNZ/Vol. V dated 8th January, 1993, and quashing the same as also for a declaration that Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited became a deemed Multi-State Co-operative Society registered under the corresponding provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter called 'the Central Act'). The first petitioner is the Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and the second petitioner is the Chairman of the Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited. Facts leading to the writ petition are as follows.2. The first respondent, Shri G.S. Patil, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, North Zone, Mapusa, Goa, had issued a notic...
Tag this Judgment!