w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sheila Umesh Tahiliani v/s Soli Phirozshaw Shroff & others


Company & Directors' Information:- SHROFF PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U17100MH1942PTC003730

    Misc. Petition No. 120 of 1980

    Decided On, 03 February 1981

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. MEHTA

    For the Petitioner: Kumari B. Millwalla with A.C. Agarwal, Advocate. For the Respondent: P.C. Khambhatta with K.P. Khambhatta, P.S. Sukhia, Advocates.



Forward Referenced In:-

general :-   1941 AIR (Bom) 103,   Saraswatibai Shripad Ved Versus Shripad Vasanji Ved]
© www.LawyerServices.in

Judgement That You are Viewing, Was Mentioned At This Paragraph:-

SORRY! You need to be a member to access this feature!



Judgment Text

D.N. MEHTA, J.


This is a petition filed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 by the petitioner for the custody of her minor son named Malcolm. The petitioner who was formerly a Zoroastrian by faith was married to one Kersi Soli Shroff according to the rites and tenets of the Zoroastrian religion. The said Kersi Shroff died in Bombay on the 18th of April, 1979 under rather tragic circumstances. On 13th March, 1979 i.e. about a month prior to the death of the said Kersi the petitioner gave birth to a son, whose custody is the subject of the present controversy.


2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the father and mother respectively of the deceased Kersi. Respondent No. 3 is the maternal grand-mother of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 is the father of the petitioner. Shortly after the birth of the minor Malcolm, the petitioner and her deceased husband appear to have separated. On 21st March, 1979 the deceased Kersi left the flat at Andheri where he cohabited with the petitioner and went to reside with his parents respondents 1 and 2. On 18th April, 1979, Kersi took an over-dose of sleeping tablets and died as a result thereof. Between 10th June, 1979 and 7th July, 1979 the petitioner resided with her maternal grand-mother, respondent No. 3 . It appears that the petitioner had been brought up by respondent No. 3 from her childhood. From 7th July, 1979 the petitioner began to reside at her flat at Andheri. At some stage the petitioner, it appears, became friendly with one Umesh Tahiliani whom she later married. It, however, is not clear on the pleadings as to when the acquaintance had begun, whether before or after the death of Kersi, her first husband. That fact, however, is no longer pertinent. What is pertinent is that on the 16th of August, 1979 the petitioner embraced Hindu religion and was married to the said Umesh Tahiliani on the same day according to Hindu Vedic rites at the Arya Samaj, Bombay.


3. Soon after her second marriage, the petitioner went out of Bombay for about three or four weeks along with the said Umesh Tahiliani. During this time, she requested respondent No. 3 to keep her minor son in her custody, which the respondent No. 3 agreed to do.


4. On the 22nd of September, 1979 the petitioner along with the said Umesh Tahiliani went to the residence of respondent No. 3 in order to fetch the minor. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 did not allow her as also her newly wedded husband to enter her residence and when asked for the custody of the minor, she informed the petitioner that the minor was at the residence of respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner tried to contact respondent No. 2 on the telephone in order to enquire about the minor, where upon respondent No. 2 disconnected the telephone without giving an answer. The petitioner has now filed this petition praying that she may be declared as the lawful guardian of the person and property of her minor son and to grant the custody of the minor to her. She has also prayed that the respondents be ordered and directed to forthwith deliver custody of the said Malcolm to the petitioner.


5. Shri Agarwal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the respondents 1, 2 and 3 had wrongfully with held the custody of the minor from his mother who was the natural guardian. Shri Agarwal stated that the opposition of respondents 1, 2 and 3 for with holdings custody of the minor to the mother was based on three grounds. Firstly, on the fact of the conversion of the petitioner from the religion of her birth. Secondly, on the ground that she had abandoned the guardianship of the minor and thirdly on the ground that deceased Kersi had expressed a wish that his son be brought up in the Zoroastrian faith and further that he be brought up to be a priest by profession. Shri Agarwal submitted that proselytism of the petitioner could in no way effect the right of the mother to the custody of her minor son, a submission with which I am inclined to agree. Shri Agarwal further contended that at no stage was the minor abandoned by the mother but that she had left the minor in the charge of respondent No. 3 who was her maternal grand-mother during the brief period that she went on a honeymoon with her newly wedded husband. Finally, Shri Agarwal submitted that the wishes of the deceased father to raise the minor in the faith of his father's and to train him to be a priest by profession could not in any way annul or abridge the right of the mother to the guardianship of her minor child. Shri Agarwal has even questioned the factum of the deceased father having expressed any such wish, as asserted by respondents 1, 2 and 3.


6. Shri Agarwal cited a vintage the decision in the case of (The Queen v. Shapurji Bezonji and Bezonji Edalji)1, reported in 1943 Parsi Oriental Cases 91, wherein it was observed by the learned Judges :---


"Then as to the point of Hormazji having became a Christian, we cannot for one moment listen to the argument, that because a man has changed his religion, therefore, his natural rights are held to be forfeited."


7. Shri Agarwal also drew my attention to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of (Audiappa Pillai v. Nallendrani Pillai)2, reported in I.L.R. 39 Madras 473. It will be sufficient to recite the head note appearing in the volume :---


"Under section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the Court must be satisfied that the husband or father is unfit to be the guardian of his wife or child respectively before it can appoint another person as guardian. The fact of the father marrying a second time is no ground for depriving him of the guardianship of his minor children. "


8. Shri Agarwal also relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of (Saraswatibai Shripad Ved v. Shripad Vasanji Ved)3, reported in A.I.R. 1941 Bom. 103, wherein Beaumont, C.J. observed :---


"I think the law on question of this sort is the same in this Country as in England, though of course social habits may be different. The modern view of Judges in England is that it is impossible, in the case of a young child, to find any adequate substitute for the love and care of the natural mother. If the natural mother is a suitable person, the courts in England will as a general rule hand over the custody of a child of tender years to the mother. The mother's position is regarded as of much more importance in modern times than it was in former days, when a wife was regarded as little more than the chattel of her husband. The view of society in India as to the position of women may not have advanced so far or so fast as in England, but at the same time the right of the mother to the custody of her young children is undoubtedly recognised in this country. However, the paramount consideration is the interest of the child, rather than the rights of the parents. Human nature is much the same all the world over and in my opinion is the mother is a suitable person to take charge of the child, it is quite impossible to find an adequate substitute for her for the custody of a child of tender years."

In the same decision, Wadia, J. in a concurrent Judgment observed :---


"That natural right of the father has received statutory recognition in section 19(b), Guardians and Wards Act, VIII of 1890. But section 19 is in my opinion controlled by section 17 of the same Act, according to which the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor."


9. Shri Agarwal submitted that the ground on which the respondents 1, 2 and 3 opposed the petitioner's application for custody were untenable and that I should grant the petitioner custody of the minor forthwith in view of the fact that she was the natural guardian of the minor.


10. Shri Khambhatta, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 has not denied that the petitioner as the natural mother in normal course would be entitled to the custody of the minor. He, however, emphasised that under section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 there were two factors which were required to be taken into consideration whilst appointing a guardian-one was the religion of the minor and other was the wish of a deceased parent. Shri Khambhatta submitted that the minor so far had been brought up in the Zoroastrian faith and that it was the wish of the deceased father that the child be not only brought up in the same faith but also that he should be trained to become a priest by profession. Shri Khambhatta submitted that the petitioner having converted herself to Hinduism would not be able to bring up the child in the Zoroastrian faith. Shri Khambhatta also pointed out certain other disabilities, which according to him would not enable the petitioner to bring up the child in a healthy and congenial atmosphere. Shri Khambhatta stated that ultimately the custody of the minor may be granted to the mother, but for some years the minor may be permitted to remain with respondents 1, 2 and 3 who had so far brought up the minor from his infancy.


11. Shri Khambhatta relied upon the decision in (Helen Skineer v. Sophia Evelina Orde)4, reported in Moore's I.A. 309 wherein the Judicial Committee was pleased to observe :---


"From the very necessity of a case, a child in India under ordinary circumstances must be presumed to have his father's religion and his corresponding civil and social status; and it is, therefore, ordinarily and in the absence of controlling circumstances the duty of a guardian to train his infant in such religion. "


12. Shri Khambhatta also relied upon a decision of the Oudh High Court in the case of (Nadir Mirza v. Munni Begam)5, reported in A.I.R. 1930 Oudh 471 wherein the Judicial Committee was pleased to observe :---


"In the present case the child was born a Shia Mohamedan and had brought up by his father in that faith until the father's death. He has not lived with his mother for two years and it is a matter for serious consideration whether a mother, who has rejected the religion of her husband, should be able to come forward on the latter death and take away the son, whom she had herself left with his father, from the religion and the surroundings in which he has been so far brought up.

X X X X X X X

Generally speaking, a Court of justice is leath to take sides in a case between rival religions, and where a male child has been born and brought up in the faith of his father, I do not consider that he should be handed ever to his mother who has left that faith, and has thereby stepped outside the family in which she was married, with certainty that the boy will be induced to leave the religion of his father for the new religion of the mother. In may opinion, therefore, the child should be left with his grand father and I accordingly allow this appeal."


13. Shri Khambhatta pointed out that the facts in the case cited above were identical with the facts of the present case and that following the reasoning of the learned Judge I should withhold the custody of the minor from the mother.


14. It is true that in the instance case the petitioner has converted herself from the Zoroastrian faith to Hinduism. That, however, to my mind does not disentitle the petitioner as the mother from having the custody of the minor. The authorities relied upon by Shri Khambhatta were pronounced decades ago and the observations applied to a by gone era. In the Society in which we live religion is a matter of one's personal faith and conversion cannot be regarded as a disqualification for the custody of the minor so long as the guardian is capable of providing a congenial, comfortable and a happy home for the minor. It is in evidence that the petitioner's second husband Umesh Tahiliansi is gainfully employed in the Income-tax Department. The Petitioner herself is also gainfully employed. I am informed that the said Umesh Tahiliani has been allotted a flat in the Income-tax Officers' Quarters on Pedder Road. I am, therefore, satisfied that the petitioner will be able to provide a congenial and a happy home for the minor.


15. I would have had no hesitation in granting the petitioner's prayer for the custody of the minor forthwith but for the fact that there are certain factors which do not favour the instantaneous transfer of the minor from the custody of respondents 1, 2 and 3 to that of the petitioner. These factors are : firstly, that the petitioner has a second child who is at present a baby in arms and will, therefore, require the constant attention of the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner is employed and there being no other member of the family, when both the petitioner and Umesh Tahiliani attend to their work, the minor will be left on the tender mercy of servants. Shri Agarwal submitted that the petitioner was willing to give an undertaking to this Court that she will give up her employment in order that she may be able to devote her attention fully to her children. The fact, however, remains that today the petitioner is still in employment. I have not insisted on the petitioner giving the undertaking for the reason that in these difficult days of financial stringency with the price level shooting up daily, it would not be fair to call upon the petitioner to resign her post. The third factor and which is the most important keeping in mind that fact that the welfare of the minor is of paramount importance, is that I consider it unwise to tear the minor from the environment in which he has been brought up. I think it will be in the interest of the minor to permit him to continue in the atmosphere in which he has been brought up by respondents 1, 2 and 3 for atleast a year, by which time he will be of an age when he will begin to attend school. In these proceedings an interim order has been passed permitting the petitioner to have access to the minor every evening from 5-00 p.m. to 7-00 p.m. and from every Friday evening till Monday morning. I think this arrangement is eminently suitable and reasonable and the same ought to be continued for a period of one year during the time till the minor will be in the custody or respondents 1, 2 and 3. Apart from this a further provision that after every three months the minor will be permitted to live with the petitioner for a period of fifteen days, will also facilitate in the eventual transfer of the minor from respondents 1, 2 and 3 to the petitioner. This arrangement is with a view that at the end of the year the custody of the minor will be transferred to the petitioner. Thereafter respondents 1, 2 and 3 can be provided access in order that they may fulfil the wishes of the deceased father of the minor. The pr

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ocess of gradual transfer from one surrounding to another will spare the minor any traumatic experience which a sudden change of surroundings is likely to cause. 16. Accordingly I do order that the minor Malcolm will continue to remain in the custody of respondents 1, 2 and 3 for period of about a year i.e. till 30th April, 1982. During this period, the petitioner will be permitted to have access to the minor every evening from 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. and further from every Friday evening till Monday morning. I further direct that at the end of every three months, the minor will be handed over to the petitioner who will keep him with her for a fortnight. On 1st May, 1982 respondents 1, 2 and 3 will hand over custody of the minor to the petitioner who by that time will have reached the age for joining a school. After the petitioner gains custody of the minor, she will grant access to respondents 1, 2 and 3 on every Saturday and Sunday so that respondents 1, 2 and 3 may endeavour to fulfil the wish of the deceased father. 17. Shri Agarwal has applied that the minor be allowed to accompany the petitioner and the said Umesh Tahiliani who are proceeding to Bangalore for a Holiday for a period of three weeks. I think a change of climate will certainly benefit the minor. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 will hand over the minor to the petitioner to enable her to take the minor with her for a three weeks' holiday to Bangalore. The petitioner will return the custody of the minor on her return to Bombay to respondents 1, 2 and 3. Liberty to the parties to apply. There will be no order as to costs of the petition.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

19-05-2020 Jackie Kukubhai Shroff Versus Ratnam Sudesh Iyer High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 S.J. Shroff - A Partnership Concern Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
12-06-2019 Yashodhara Shroff & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Karnataka
16-10-2018 Shroff Textiles Ltd, Mumbai Versus Dcit 11(2)(1), Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai
25-07-2018 Chitra Adhikari Shroff Versus Gautam Shroff & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-04-2018 Mohan Menghraj Shroff Versus Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-02-2018 Partnership Firm Named Anilesh Navinchandra Shroff & Another Versus State of Gujarat & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
13-04-2017 Poonam Jaidev Shroff Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-06-2016 Sri Balkrishna Shroff Versus The Mayor, The Kolkata Municipal Corporation High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-10-2015 Razia Amirali Shroff & Others Versus M/s. Nishuvi Corporation & Others Supreme Court of India
30-01-2015 Amarnath Shroff & Another Versus The Official Liquidator of Origin Agro Star Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2014 M/s. Shroff Textiles Ltd. Versus Chandrashekar Poojari Supreme Court of India
24-09-2013 Nilu Shroff Versus Joint Secretary, Govt. of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-09-2013 Balkrishna Shroff Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-07-2013 Pesi Dady Shroff Versus Boehringer Ingelheim Denmark & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-04-2013 Ratnam Sudesh Iyer Versus Jackie K. Shroff High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-10-2012 State of Maharashtra Versus Pradeep K. Shroff & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-05-2012 The Tata Power Company Limited, Rep. by B.J. Shroff Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, Through Secretary & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
17-11-2011 Dr. Ashok Shroff & Another Versus Surmukh Singh Mahajan & Others Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
16-09-2011 Vibgyor High School; Rustom Kerawalla Foundation v/s (1) State of Maharashtra; (2) V. K. Wankhede; (3) Avisha Gopalkrishnan; (4) Prashant Basrur; (5) Sanjita Prasad; (6) Vishal Ruia; (7) Balchandran Unni, Darius B. Shroff; (8) Sagar Talekar High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-08-2011 Murzban F. Shroff. M Versus T.C. Gopalakrishnan Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-06-2011 Amar Nath Shroff Versus Savitri Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-06-2011 Shroff United Chemicals Limited Versus The Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-10-2010 Meena Shroff & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-05-2010 Mrs. Anita Anosh Shroff Versus J.M. Constructions & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-04-2010 Laxmi Devi Shroff Adarsh Sanskrit College, Deoghar Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner High Court of Jharkhand
12-04-2010 Miss Thrity Sam Shroff Versus Mehroo Meherji Vakil & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-01-2010 Pharma Chem & Others Versus Rajnikanth Devidas Shroff & Another Supreme Court of India
20-04-2009 Laxmi Devi Shroff Adarsh Sanskrit College Deoghar Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Ranchi High Court of Jharkhand
03-03-2009 Pharma Chem Versus Rajnikant Devidas Shroff High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
29-07-2008 M/s. Vijayakumar & Co., (Jute), Private Limited rep. by Vijaykumar Shroff Versus Tamil Nadu Co-operative Sugar Federation Limited High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2008 State of Haryana Versus K. L. Shroff High Court of Delhi
30-04-2008 Khojeste Mistree & Others Versus Minoo Rustomji Shroff of Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-03-2008 Ashwin Shroff & Another Versus State of Punjab & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-03-2008 Minoo Rustomji Shroff & Others Versus Dali Kavasji Gai of Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-01-2008 Minoo R. Shroff & Others Versus Shiraaz D. Zilla & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-08-2007 Shroff Publisher and Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Springer India Pvt. Ltd High Court of Delhi
20-07-2007 S.L.Saraf @ S.L. Shroff Versus State of Bihar High Court of Bihar
18-05-2007 Dilip N. Shroff Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Another Supreme Court of India
14-03-2007 Navinchandra Krushnalal Shroff Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
13-03-2007 Sara Rauf & Another Versus Durgashankar Ganeshlal Shroff Since Deceased Represented by L.Rs. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-03-2007 Thrity Sam Shroff Versus Shiraz Byramji Anklesaria & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-11-2005 Kishore D. Shroff Versus Director, Enforcement Directorate Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange New Delhi
01-04-2005 Minoo Rustomji Shroff & Ors. Versus Charity Commissioner & Ors. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-03-2005 Minoo Rustomji Shroff Versus Union Of India High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-04-2004 Maa Communications Bozell Ltd.Versus Sh.K.L. Shroff High Court of Delhi
16-04-2004 Ms. Grace Shanthappa Versus Vijay Shroff & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2003 K.L. Shroff Versus State of Haryana & Another High Court of Delhi
30-10-2002 Jayshree Rajendra Shroff Versus Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad Supreme Court of India
24-09-2002 TARUN THAKORE VERSUS DR. NOSHIR M. SHROFF AND OTHERS National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-08-2002 Tarachand Hassaram Shamdasani Versus Durgashankar G.Shroff High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-10-2000 Bansilal Kanaiyalal Shah Versus B.R. Shroff High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
05-09-2000 Jayshree Rajendra Shroff Versus Appropriate Authority (Income Tax) High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
08-08-2000 Bharat Agriculture Corporation Versus Krushnakant Madhusudan Shroff High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
05-05-2000 Romila Jaidev Shroff Versus Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-02-2000 M/s. Shroff Industries Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus State Government Of A.P. & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
11-10-1999 Sudhir Asher Versus Vijay Shroff High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-04-1999 Commissioner of Income-Tax,Bombay City V, Bombay Versus R.Shroff Consultants P. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-01-1999 Chirag M. Shroff Versus Godrej Soaps Private Limited Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission New Delhi
17-04-1998 K.L. Shroff Versus State of Haryana High Court of Delhi
03-12-1997 Mafatlal Maneklal Shah, Vadodara Versus Bipinchandra Mangaldas Shroff and Commission Agent High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
12-09-1997 Sharadkumar Tansukhlal Shroff Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-02-1997 Kikabhai Shroff Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-10-1996 Govinddas Mannulal Shroff & others Versus State of Maharashtra & others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-08-1996 Govinddas Mannulal Shroff & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-12-1995 M/s Kabari Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shivnath Shroff & Others Supreme Court of India
14-09-1994 Shroff and Company and other Versus Food Corporation of India and other High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-08-1993 Sudha Textile Traders and Sudha Shashikant Shroff Versus Kalyani Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-03-1993 Vrandavandas Kikabhai Shroff Versus Khan,Mamlatdar And Agricultural Land Tribunal High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
05-02-1993 Pesi Shroff Versus State of Maharashra and others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-09-1992 Pradeep Kantilal Shroff Versus Khorshed Kersap Aga & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-01-1992 Homai J. Shroff & Others Versus Eastern Engineers Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
11-05-1990 M L Shroff And Co Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-02-1990 Note - West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Has However Decided In Overseas Packaging Industries Case [1990] 78 Stc 267 And M L Shroff And Co S Case [1991] 80 Stc 65 That Tribunal Is Not Competent To Entertain A Matter Arising Under Central Sales Tax Act 1956 - Ed Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-07-1989 Homi B. Munshi Versus P.G. Shroff High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
12-08-1988 Messrs Shroff and Company v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another,. (Civil Appeal No. 737 of 1988). Trade Links Limited and Another Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another(Slp (Civil) Nos. 2617 and 2618 of 1988) Supreme Court of India
09-08-1988 Jaywant S. Kulkarni and Others Versus Minochar Dosabhai Shroff and Others Supreme Court of India
25-11-1987 Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay Versus Shroff and Co. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-10-1987 Bhanuprasad Chhotalal Shroff Versus Kachhiya Amritlal Gordhandas High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
06-03-1987 State of West Bengal Versus Madanlal Shroff High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-01-1986 Shroff and Company Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-08-1984 Vijay Shroff Versus Sudhir Asher High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-09-1980 B.B. Shroff Versus Sardar Bhilandwala Pardi Peoples Co Operative Bank Limited High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
26-11-1979 Sanmukhrai Khandubhai Desai Versus Arvind Jekishandas Shroff High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
17-11-1977 V.C. Shroff Versus Gujarat Electricity Board High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
17-01-1974 Shroff Brothers Versus Bisheswar Dayal Meatle High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-11-1972 Krishnamukhlal Bhagwandas Shroff Versus Sha.Bhagwan Kashidas,A Firm At Surat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
29-09-1972 Sreenarayan Shroff Versus Sambhu Prosad Agarwal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
16-03-1971 Umamaheswar Cotton, Ginning And Pressing Factory Versus Rama Rao Shroff High Court of Karnataka
16-03-1971 Umamaheshwar Cotton Ginning And Pressing Factory Versus Rama Rao Shroff High Court of Karnataka
14-09-1970 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M.S. SHROFF High Court of Delhi
01-07-1969 Dalichand Virchand Shroff Versus Babulal Rajmal High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
01-03-1968 Shah Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal Versus Dalichand Virchand Shroff and Others Supreme Court of India
23-10-1962 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I, Bombay Versus Amarchand N. Shroff, By His Heirs and Legal Representatives Supreme Court of India
21-08-1962 DEVYANI KANTILAL SHROFF VERSUS KANTILAL GAMANLAL SHROFF High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-1962 Balubhai Dahyabhai Shroff Versus Govindbhai Dayalbhai High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
28-03-1962 Ila Devi N.Shroff Versus Management of Desai Valdhand Vashram, Gujarathi School High Court of Karnataka
19-09-1960 HIRALAL BABLISA SHROFF VERSUS RAMDAS PURSHOTTAMDAS High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-10-1959 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY CITY VERSUS AMARCHAND N. SHROFF High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-04-1956 Badri Narayan Singh Versus Kalyan Prasad Shroff High Court of Bihar