Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(4)BomCR39
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. All these 10 appeals are interconnected and pertain to one and the same dispute. They arise out of a common order dated 23-10-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nasik. Common arguments were heard addressed by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and respondents. Hence all the 10 appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. First appeals numbers, corresponding case numbers of the District Judge and corresponding case numbers of the Asst. Charity Commissioner are as follows:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal in High Civil Misc. Application Scheme Application beforeCourt before District Judge the Asst. Charity Commis- sioner------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ F.A. C.M.C. S.C.A. 1. 1587/96 167/92 11/962. 1628/96 164/92 11/903. 1629/96 166/92 12/914. 1630/96 168/92 2/895. 1631/96 204/92 12/916. 1686/96 166/92 12/917. 1687...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per P.B. Majmudar, J.) 1. Both these petitions are directed against the order of the Charity Commissioner dated 27th April, 1994 passed under Section 36 (2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter "the Act"), by which the Charity Commissioner has revoked the sanction granted for sale of the land belonging to F.E. Dinshaw Trust ("the Trust"). The said order of the Charity Commissioner is challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1486 of 1994 in whose favour sanction was granted for sale of the land as well as by the Trust by way of Writ Petition No. 1814 of 1994. The Trust has filed the said writ petition only for expunging the remarks made against the Trust by the Charity Commissioner in the impugned order. 2. The subject matter of the proceedings under Section 36 of the Act is the huge property belonging to the F.E. Dinshaw Trust situated at Malad, bearing Survey No. 79 (Part), CTS No. 226 (Pt.), admeasuring 94,511 sq.mtrs. The said Trust made an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1076; (1978)2SCC534; [1978]3SCR578; 1978(10)LC456(SC)
1. This appeal is by the legal representatives of the plaintiff by a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) against its Judgment and decree dated 12th August, 1966.2. The plaintiff in the suit is the brother of the ex-proprietor of the Ahiri Zamindar, the second defendant, second respondent in this appeal. The first defendant is the State of Maharashtra, the first respondent in this appeal.3. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, Act I of 1951 received the assent of the President on 22nd January, 1951 and was published in the Gazette on 26th January, 1951. The State Government published a notification bringing the Act into force from 31st March, 1951. Before the Act came into force on 31st March, 1951 the plaintiff who is a brother of the second respondent, the proprietor of the estate, took a contract on 15th March, 1951, for cutting the standing trees in the forest known as Hachbodi Nendwadi coupe for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC1340; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)270; 1996(3)SCALE72; (1996)4SCC127; [1996]3SCR785
ORDER1. This appeal on reference to this Bench raises an interesting question of law. The respondent while working as Major General, Army Ordnance Corps., Southern Command, Pune between December, 1, 1982 and July 7, 1985 was in-charge of purchase. The Controller General of Defence Accounts in special audit on the local purchases sanctioned by the respondent prima facie found that respondent had deselected his duty and action under the Act was initiated against him. At that time, the respondent was attached to College of Military Engineering, Pune and was promoted as Major General. After initiation of the proceedings he was ordered to retire which he had challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 3189 of 1986 in the Bombay High Court which stood dismissed on August 29, 1986.2. On August 30, 1986, action was initiated against the respondent under Section 123 of the Army Act, 1950 (for short, the 'Act'). He was kept under open arrest from that date onwards and retired from service on August 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1958All396
ORDERGopalji Mehrotra, J.1. The petitioner is a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and has a sugar factory for the manufacture of sugar. On 28-3-1955 notices were issued by the Assistant Custodian, Saharanpur, under Rule 6 (1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules, addressed to 50 persons who were formerly employees in the petitioners' factory requiring them to show cause why orders be not passed declaring them evacuees and all their properties to be taken over under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. Among the properties certain amounts were mentioned as evacuee money alleged to be lying with the Mills to the credit of those evacuees. The total amount was Rs. 4,207/15/-. The petitioner company was also mentioned as an interested person in the notices issued in the names of those evacuees. The amount was claimed to be in respect of bonus payable for the year 1946-47 under a Government Order made in the crushing year 194...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad447; (1953)IILLJ24Mad; (1953)IMLJ315
ORDERSubbarao, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a 'Writ of Certiprari' to quash the order of respondent 1 dated 24-9-1951. Petitioner 2 is the Liberator Ltd, represented by its Secretary. Petitioner 1 is an advocate. By G. O. No. 3167 dated 10-7-1951, the Government of 'Madras referred the industrial dispute between petitioner 2 and its employees to respondent, 1 the Tribunal constituted by respondent, 2 the State of Madras. On 11-9-1951, petitioner 1 sought to file his 'vakalat' on behalf of petitioner 2 before the Tribunal. The representative of the labourers objected to petitioner l appearing for petitioner 2. On 24-9-1951, afer hearing the parties, the Tribunal held, relying upon the provisions of section 36(4), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that it had no power to grant leave to petitioner 1 to appear on behalf of the company, petitioner 2. Section 36(4), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by the Industrial Disputes (Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1998Bom131; 1998(1)ALLMR393; 1998(2)BomCR744; (1998)1BOMLR822; 1998(1)MhLj444
ORDERArvind V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Shri R. S. Apte for the heirs of Appellant No. 1, Shri A. A. Kumbhakoni for the heirs of original respondent No.1. Shri K.K. Tated, Assistant Government Pleader for Charity Commissioner, and State of Maharashtra, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.2. This appeal of 1979 has been placed before us pursuant to the order passed by the learned Chief Justice on a reference made by a learned Single Judge on 17th August 1994 for deciding the following three questions:(1) Whether an appeal filed under section 72(4) of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is subject to restrictions and limitations imposed on a 'Second Appeal' as prescribed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Whether an appeal under section 72(4) of the Act is maintainable even on questions of fact, mixed questions of fact and law or mere question of law?(2) Whether the trust known as Gangubai's Shri Datta Trust, situate at Solapur created under the Deed of Trust dated 13th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2945; JT2006(8)SC547; (2007)2MLJ427(SC); RLW2007(1)SC359; 2006(8)SCALE399
C.K. Thakker, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is filed as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by petitioner- Confederation of ex-serviceman Associations for an appropriate writ directing the respondent-Union of India to recognize the right of full and free medicare of ex- servicemen, their families and dependents treating such right as one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. A prayer is also made to direct the respondents to take necessary steps to ensure that full and free medicare is provided to ex-servicemen, their families and dependents on par with in-service defence personnel. A further prayer is also made to extend such medicare for all diseases including serious and terminal diseases, even if treatment for those diseases is not available at Military Hospitals. 2. The case of the petitioner is that there are certain ex-servicemen Associations which have formed a Confederation in furtherance of common cause for welfare of ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1993Bom315; 1994(1)BomCR103; 1993(2)MhLj1056
ORDER1. In both these writ petitions, the judgment of the Joint Charity Commissioner, passed in Application No. 3/1992, has been impugned on the ground that under S. 41-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, the Joint Charity Commissioner has no powers to interfere with the process of election to the Governing Council of the public trust, set in motion on the grounds stated in his order dated 14-5-1992 in Appln. No. 3/ 1992 and hence both these writ petitions are disposed of by the common judgment. The question posed is what are the parameters of Section41-A of the said Act. Section 41-A reads as under:-- 'Section 41-A:-- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Charity-Commissioner may from time to time issue directions to any trustee of a public trust or any person connected therewith, to ensure that the trust is properly administered, and the income thereof is properly accounted for or duly appropriated and applied to the objects and for the purposes of the trust; and the Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)224CTR(SC)16; [2009]314ITR167(SC); (2009)10SCC755; [2009]180TAXMAN514(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, this appeal has been filed. The questions raised before the High Court are as follows:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was justified in holding that the unpaid amount of bottling fee has, on furnishing of the bank guarantee, to be treated as actual payment and accordingly allowing the deduction in respect of the same under Section 43B of the Act, even though the sum has not been actually paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was justified in allowing the depreciation on research & development assets which related to the closed business of fast food division/unit of the assessee-company as such not used during the previous year? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T...
Tag this Judgment!