Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Stock Exchange vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 17 January, 1998 cites

The Official Assignee Of Bombay vs K.R.P. Shroff on 6 May, 1932

22. Even the other decision, dt. 20th December, 1991, by learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Notice of Motion No. 57/1991 in petition No. 24/1952 on which reliance was placed, was passed in the context of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, relying upon the ratio of the decision in Official Assignee vs. Shroff (supra). Considering the definition of the word "property" in s. 2(e) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, it was noted by the Court that the right of nomination, in the case before it, being a joint one with the widow and other son of the deceased, it could not be said that the insolvent had an exclusive right for his own benefit and, therefore, the right of nomination which was indivisible, could not be exercised by him alone. In this context it was held that it could not be treated as a property within the meaning of definition of the word "property" in s. 2(e) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. This decision, therefore, cannot assist the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Mrs. Sejal Rikeen Dalal And Others vs The Stock Exchange, Bombay And Another on 12 April, 1990

23. The third decision of the Bombay High Court on which reliance was placed of Sejal Dalal vs. Stock Exchange, (supra) also cannot assist the petitioner because in that case a right to membership was being asserted as a fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and the petitioner, who was nominated for membership of the stock exchange, but did not get elected by securing requisite majority of votes of the governing board in the election by ballot, failed on the ground that the decision of the governing board arrived at bona fide for not granting membership to the petitioner did not violate fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Much reliance was placed on the observations made by the Court in para 10 of the judgment in which, while referring to the rules similar to those of the petitioner stock exchange relating to its membership, it was observed that the membership under those rules was not a transferable right and that there was no property in membership. It is obvious that while referring to the provisions relating to membership in para 10, the Honble Court only indicated that transfer inter vivos was not permissible and, therefore, there was no property which could be transferred inter vivos in that membership. In fact, in para 14 of the judgment in the context of the governing boards power, it was observed that if a decision is not bona fide or is based on ill-informed prejudice, it can be challenged as a mala fide exercise of discretion. There was no question involved in that case about the power of the Revenue to attach the property and the decision revolves entirely around a different issue namely, whether a nominee can claim a fundamental right to become a member of a stock exchange.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 38 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1