Mumbai Court April 1979 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Sakamari Steel and Alloys Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1979
Reported in: [1981]51CompCas266(Bom)
R.L. Aggarwal, J.1. M/s. Sakamari Steel and Alloys Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') have taken out this judge's summons for directions for conveying a meeting of its secured and unsecured creditors to consider a scheme of compromise or arrangement proposed by the company for the discharge of their dues.2. The company has also taken out a judge's summons for stay of commencement of or continuance of all or any suits or proceedings against the company.3. Both these applications do not remain ex parte since notices of these applications have been served upon M/s. Purnanand & Co., advocates for the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'SICOM') and the Bank of Maharashtra, who have acted for them in the sale of the company's factory at Nagpur. Mr. Bhatt, learned counsel, appeared for SICOM and opposed the applications. Mr. Mulay also appeared for the Bank of Maharashtra, but without notice, at the fag end of the hearing a...
Popatlal Gokuldas and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom140
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ directing the respondents to withdraw and or cancel the impugned orders dated 20th November 1957, 21st April 1962, 18th February 1965 and 28th April 1967 (Exs. A to D to the petition) and the notice of demand dated 19th December 1969 (Ex. E to the Petition).2. The 1st respondent is the State of Maharashtra, the 2nd respondent is the Additional District Deputy Collector and 3rd respondent is the Mamlatdar, Taluka Kurla.3. The main question that arises in this petition is whether the Collector was entitled to invoke Rule 81 (3) of the Land Revenue Rules, 1921 and, if so, whether his order levying enhanced assessment is in compliance with the requirements of that rule.4. The petitioners carry on, and at all material times carried on, business in the name and style of M/s. Eastern Aluminum Works. The Petitioners are the owners of certain lands admeasuring 6832 square yards situate at old Agra Road, Kur...
indramani Radhakishan Santaram Singhania Vs. AugustIn Peter D'souza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR144
Deshpande, J.1. [His Lordship after dealing with the factual aspects of the case, which are not material to the present report, continued]:-2. Mr. Kothari then contends that alter the Town Planning Scheme is finally sanctioned by the State Government, title of the original owner of the land in the plots carved out there from, stands extinguished and rights as settled by the Town Planning Officer alone survive for recognition. Reliance is placed on Section 53(b) of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, and the extract of redistribution and valuation statement of the scheme in Form B. The extract shows defendant No. 1 as the owner of the land S. No. 107/8 and that it was given original plot No. 96A, when the land was converted into the plots. It also shows that in lieu of this plot No. 96A, defendant No. 1 was allotted reconstituted plots Nos. 77, 78, 87 and 89 and Rs. 600 to compensate the loss of her land in this redistribution scheme in terms of the valuation made there under.3. This ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›