Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom92; (1964)66BOMLR807; ILR1965Bom200; 1965MhLJ577
Tambe, J.(1) All these applications can be disposed of together as one of the questions released in these applications is common and that question relates to the legality and validity of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act, 1957, (Bombay Act No. VIII of 1958). It is the contention of the petitioners in all the three cases that Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power or authority. The facts in all legislative power or authority. The facts in all these three cases are similar. It would be sufficient if facts in one case are fully stated, and we proceed to state facts in special Civil Application No. 62 of 1963 inasmuch as that was the case is which arguments were advanced by Mr. D.T. Managalmurti and which had been adopted by Mr.Kukday and Mr. Mandiekar, Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other two cases. Mr. Kukday also had supplemented the argument of Mr. Mangalm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1967]37CompCas656(Bom)
1. This petition involves a question of some complexity relating to the scope and effect of section 391 of the Companies Act,1956. 2. The petitioners are a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing textiles. They will be referred to hereafter as the company. By 1958 the company had suffered huge losses and incurred large debts. A petition for winding up was filed in this court on 28th April,1958, and on the same day an order to wind up the company was passed. The official liquidator was appointed liquidator of the company. He took possession of all the company's properties and records. 3. Prior to the winding-up order, the company has submitted sales tax returns from time to time for the period between 1952 and 1958, and had also paid the amounts of sales tax that were due according to those returns. No assessment orders were, however, passed by the Sales Tax officer concerned. 4. After the winding-up order, the Sales Tax officer sent a letter, dated 8th August, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom194; (1966)68BOMLR295; 1966MhLJ289
Abhyankar, J.(1) This order will dispose of a batch of 28 Special civil Application which raise a common question of law and also interpretation of the constitution. These special civil applications are:-(2) The common question of law that arises in all these case is whether a landholder who has commenced proceedings for terminating the lease of a tenant under section 38(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands [Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area] Act, 1958, and for possession of that land is not entitled to any relief in respect of the land held by this tenant if the said tenant of was a protected lessee whose rights as such protected lessee , had come into existence's of before the landholder acquired such and by the partition., and such Acquistion of land by partition took place after the first day of the August 1953.(3) It is common ground in all these cases that the landholder who claims possession of the land claims this rights on the ground that as a result of partition of in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1968Bom400; (1967)69BOMLR808; 1968CriLJ1584
Patel, J.1. This group of appeals arises out of a prosecution against these appellants and some others for offences of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for importing and bringing into India gold in contravention of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act. 1878 read with the relevant Notifications and individual charges against several accused in respect of certain individual transactions. In the complaint 40 persons were named as defendants, out of whom defendants Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 36, 38, 39 and 40 only were amenable to the process of the Court. Rest of the defendants were not amenable to the process of the Court inasmuch as many were foreigners and some had absconded.(2) Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are brothers, are referred to as Shuhaibar brothers and are of Beirut. Defendant No. 4 Yusuf Lori alias Adulla apparently is from Baherein. Juan Casanovas, defendant No. 5 is of Geneva. Defendant No. 19 Hamad Sultan of Bombay had absc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1967]19STC97(Bom)
Patel, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge an order made by the Commissioner of Sales Tax rejecting his revision application as not competent. The short facts are as below : The petitioner is a dealer of Nagpur and is registered as such under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. A notice was issued to him by the Sales Tax Officer regarding the assessment of sales tax for the period 1957-58 on 30th June, 1960. The Sales Tax Officer increased the turnover of the petitioner by 25 per cent. and did not allow any deduction under section 2(j)(a)(ii) in respect of sales purported to have been effected to registered dealers of goods. He was also directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 898. The petitioner presented an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Easter Division, Nagpur. This appeal was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a second appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Eastern Division, Nagpur. By a preliminary order, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax calle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1967)69BOMLR603; 1967MhLJ915
Abhyankar, J.1. As these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise one common question of considerable importance in the matter of admissions to Government educational institutions, we propose' to dispose of both these petitions by common order.2. Special Civil Application No. 813 of 1966 is at the instance of Shri Ashok Krishnarao Dhote. To his petition, the Dean, Medical College, Nagpur and the State of Maharashtra have been impleaded as respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Besides them, are also impleaded respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, Shri S.W. Korpe, Shri M.V. Mahajan, Shri V.L. Bonde and Shri V.Y. Dhote respectively, who, according to the petitioner, have been admitted to the Medical College at Nagpur after the petitioner was included in a provisional list of students eligible to be admitted. Petitioner Dhote's case its that he is a student belonging to the backward class. He passed B. Sc. Part I Examination of the Nagpur University in June 1966 which is a qualifying1 Exami...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1968)70BOMLR177; 1968MhLJ185
Abhyankar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Company Limited, Nagpur, Respondent No. 1 is the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Bombay, and respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra.2. The petitioner challenges, by this petition, the validity of a notice dated April 26, 1966, purporting to have been given by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner under Section 6(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (IX of 1910). That notice is annexure E to the petition, at page 36 of the paper-book, and is as follows:MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDMercantile Bank Building, Fort, Bombay-1. No. PLE-VDB-2(A) 194751.Date 26th April 1966. By Regd. Post A.D. ToM/S. The Nagpur Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd., Nagpur Branch, Post Box No. 2, Civil Lines, Nagpur.Sub:-Notice under Sub-section 1 and Sub-section 6 of Section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, to purchase your Electricity Undertaking by Maharashtra State ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1968Bom219; (1967)69BOMLR871; 1967MhLJ954
(1) The petitioner Shri. S. H. Mankar has challenged the election of the respondent as a member of the Maharastra Legislative Assembly from 104 Balapur Assembly Constituency in Akola District, at the recent elections held in February, 1967.(2) The petitioner was himself a candidate at such election. The petitioner had originally challenged the election of the respondent on two grounds. Firstly he contended that the respondent was holding an office of profit under the State of Maharastra and was therefore disqualified from being nominated to or becoming a member of the Maharastra Legislative Assembly under Article 191 of the Constitution. His second ground of attack was that the respondent had himself used his office and taken help of Government officials and vehicles to strengthen his election machinery.(3) Both these allegations were denied by the respondent in his written statement; but the petitioner made a statement before this Court on 24-6-1967 that he did not want to press the s...
Tag this Judgment!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 : (1968)IILLJ552Bom
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the Government of Maharashtra, under S. 10(1)(d) read with S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for adjudication of a dispute between the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and the workmen (excluding those on the N.M.R. establishment) employed under it in the Western Maharashtra and Marathwada which arises out of a demand for adequate bonus for the year 1963-64 and 1966-65 made by the workmen. So far as the dispute relating to bonus for the year 1964-65 is concerned, it is undisputed that the case is governed by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Sri N. V. Phadke, on behalf of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, has raised a preliminary objection contending that the Maharashtra State Electricity Board is exempt from the liability to pay bonus by reason of the fact that it is an establishment in the public sector within the meaning of that expression in S. 2(16)(b) of the Payment of Bonus Act, which for the sake of brevity will hereafter be ref...
Tag this Judgment!