Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1906)8BOMLR129
Arthuh Wilson, J.1. The first of these appeals arises out of a suit instituted in the Court of the Assistant Political Agent of Sorath Prant in Kathiawar (the term Prant meaning an administrative district). The grounds of the plaintiff's claim, so far as it has now to be noticed, were that in February 1893 he had advanced money to the late Darbar Shri Vala Naja Manaiya, a shareholder in the Chief ship or Talukdari of Jetpur Chital in Kathiawar, for the purpose of paying off debts due by the latter, who was a talukdar of the sixth class, and that the plaintiff had acquired possession ; that Vala Naja died in May 1901; and that the plaintiff's rights as mortgagee had been interfered with or threatened by the nominal defendant as manager for the substantial defendants, the successors of the deceased Chief. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration of his rights and an injunction. In effect therefore the suit was one to enforce a mortgage made by a deceased Chief against his successors. The A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1928)30BOMLR598; 110Ind.Cas.649
Blackwell, J.1. This is a petition to sanction a reduction and reorganization of the capital of a company. The petition is opposed by certain shareholders of the company.2. The capital of the company as fixed by its memorandum of association is Rs. ten crores divided into twenty lacs preference shares of Rs. 10 each and eighty lacs ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each, and the issued and subscribed capital of the company is twenty lacs cumulative preference shares of Rs. 10 each and forty lacs ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each. The whole of the issued and subscribed capital has been taken up and fully paid.3. Article 52 of the articles of association of the company provides that the company may from time to time by special resolution reduce its capital as therein indicated. Article 55 of the articles of association of the company is in the following terms:-Whenever the capital, by reason of the issue of preference shares or otherwise, is divided into different classes of shares, all or any of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1928)30BOMLR1115
Blanesburgh, J.1. The Tata Industrial Bank, Limited, was in the year 1917 incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1918, for the purpose of carrying on the business of banking in all its branches. It had a nominal capital of twelve crores of rupees, divided into 1,600,000 shares of 75 rupees each. In July, 1923, 1,000,893 of its shares were in issue, and on each of them the sum of Us. 22-8 had been paid up. There was therefore an uncalled liability of Rs. 52-8 on every issued share, In July, 1923, the first appellant was the holder of one hundred of these 1,000,893 shares, and the second appellant was the holder of live. The relatively trifling amount of these holdings constitutes a circumstance of relevance at many stages of this case.2. It seems to be accepted on all hands that for some years prior to July, 1923, the Tata Bank had been losing ground. It is in evidence that its deposits had in two and a half years sunk from twelve crores to three and a half crorers. Its industrial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1937Bom423; (1937)39BOMLR675
Rangnekar, J.1. The Katni Cement and Industrial Co. Ltd., was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1882, on August 13, 1912, with a nominal capital of rupees twenty lacs. The capital of the company was increased in 1919 and the present capital is rupees thirty lacs, divided into 5,000 first preference shares of Rs. 100 each, 10,000 second preference shares of Rs. 100 each, 14,376 ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each, and 1,560 deferred shares of Rs. 40 each.2. The first preference shares were issued in terms of Clause VII (') of the memorandum of association of the company and entitled the holders to a fixed cumulative preferential dividend at the rate of seven per cent, per annum on the capital for the time being paid up thereon and the right in a winding up to payment of capital in priority to the ordinary and deferred shares. The second preference shareholders were entitled to a fixed cumulative preferential dividend at the rate of seven per cent, per annum on the capital for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR287
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant is the agent of the Gwalior Durbar. The Durbar was participating in various trade and business operations, in and outside the Gwalior State for many years. The record shows that those activities in any event existed in 1924 when the predecessor of the present Maharaja was on the throne. That Maharaja had appointed Mr. F.E. Din-shaw as his agent in Bombay for his, trade or business operations. The record shows that money was advanced as loan and also on the security of immovable properties. The Gwalior Durbar as such has not been treated as an assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act, but in respect of certain trading and business operations of the Durbar the Indian Income-tax authorities sought to make the Durbar liable under the Government Trading Taxation Act, III of 1926. Section 2 of that Act, which alone is material for the present case, runs as follows:-2 (1) Where a trade or business of any kind is carried on by or on behalf of the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1955)57BOMLR378; [1955]25CompCas227(Bom)
Coyajee, J.1. This is a petition, resented by the petitioners who are creditors in the sense that they are debenture holders to the extent of Rs. 8,00,000 in the company, namely Hirjee Mills Ltd. and they are asking for an order that the Hirjee Mills Ltd. be wound up under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act and they are asking also for the appointment of the court liquidator. 2. Before I go to the details set out in the petition and in the affidavit I may make certain preliminary observations. The first is that in fact the petitioners are not the only secured creditors and there are other debenture holders who have not come before the court and made any submissions either way nor have the Bank of Baroda Ltd. who are mortgagees and the first mortgagees come before this court to make any submissions on this petition. The petitioners are supported by two very small creditors, one to the extent of Rs. 1,400 odd and another to the extent of Rs. 700 odd. On the other hand this petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1957Bom165; (1957)59BOMLR355; ILR1958Bom32
Shah, J.1. In this application the petitioner Padmakar Balkrishna Samant has sought to challenge the validity of certain provisions of the States Re-organisation Act (37 of 1956). The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Goregaon, without the limits of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, in the Taluka of Borivali, District Thana. The petitioner says that Goregaon was declared to be 'a village' within the meaning of Section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 1923, and that the said village had a panchayat consisting of 15 elected members, that about 25000 persons are residing in the village and that the panchayat 1ms a revenue of about two lacs of rupees per annum and that the Goregaon Village Panchayat is the 'biggest and the most progressive' village panchayati within the State of Bombay. The petitioner further stated that under authority conferred upon the State of Bombay by an enactment entitled the Bombay Municipal (Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA ) (Amen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom90; (1958)60BOMLR56; ILR1958Bom247; (1958)IILLJ384Bom
Mudholkar, J.1. The petitioner who was an officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police and an Assistant Commandant, Special Armed Force, Battalion Kamptee, was served by the former Government of Madhya Pradesh with a notice terminating his services three months after the date of receipt of the notice. That notice is dated 4th October 1956, and is said to have been served on the petitioner on 9th October 1956. The notice is in the following terms:'Whereas you have completed 30 years qualifying service for pension under Government.And whereas the State Government have decided to retire you from service by giving you three months in pursuance of the provisions contained in Rule 2(2) of the Madhya Pradesh New Pension Rules, 1951.Now, therefore, please take notice that you shall be retired after a period of three months from the date of receipt of this notice by you.'On 7th January 1957, the following order was made by the Government of Bombay:'In pursuance of the notice No. 6420-5420-IV, da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1959Bom56; (1958)60BOMLR1420; ILR1959Bom416
1. This judgment will also govern First Appeal Nos. 106 of 1952 and 107 of 1952. 2. These three appeals arise out of the decrees passed in three suits instituted by the respondent No. 1 Pannalal Desraj against the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, Shri G.K. Tiwari, who was Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, at the relevant time, and also against certain other parties. In all these suits the claim of the respondent No. 1 was for damages for breach of certain contracts entered into by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, with him. In the suit out of which First Appeal No. 105 of 1952 arises, the contract was for making certain extensions in the Bai Gangabai Memorial Hospital at Gondia. In the suit out of which First Appeal No. 106 of 1952 arises, the contract was for remodelling the Kunwar Tilaksingh Civil Hospital, Gondia. In the suit out of which First Appeal No. 107 of 1952 arises, the contract was for the construction of a new Hospital to be known as Twynam Hospit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom231; (1958)60BOMLR180; ILR1958Bom493
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the award made by the State Industrial Court at Nagpur on 3rd June 1957, and for issue of such orders and directions to to the respondents 2 and 3 prohibiting them from taking steps for implementing that award.2. The relevant facts are these : The petitioner is the Corporation of the City of Nagpur. The Government of the former State of Madhya Pradesh by a notification published on 23rd October 1956 referred twenty-one demands of the employees of the Corporation for arbitration to the State Industrial Court under Section 39 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. A preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Court to entertain the reference was raised by the Corporation. The State Industrial Court ruled that this objection would be decided after recording evidence. A further objection was raised by the ...
Tag this Judgment!