Mumbai Court May 2004 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: Canere Actives and Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR378; (2004)3CompLJ374(Bom); [2004]53SCL413(Bom)
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present Company petition is under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Companies Act') read with Rules 67 to 89 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1956 (for short `Rules') for sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation (for short `Scheme') for merger of Canere Actives & Fine Chemicals Private Limited (for short 'transferor company' or 'Canere') with the Nicholas Piramal India Limited (for short 'transferee company' or 'NPIL') and all the members and creditors of NPIL. The petitioner-company's registered office is situated at 405-408, Navbharat Estate, Zakaria Bunder Road, Sewree, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra. The registered office of NPIL is situated at 100, Centre Point, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra.2. The authorised, issued, subscribed and paid-up share capital of the petitioner-company is as under :Authorised Capital Rs. (in lacs)1,00,00,000 Equity Shares of Rs. 10 each 1000.0070,00,000 Preference Shares of Rs. 10 each 700...
In Re: De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR797; [2004]53SCL421(Bom)
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. This petition has been filed by the Company De Beers India Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'DBIMPL Transferor-Company No. 1'or the 'Petitioner Company') to invoke the provisions of sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, to obtain sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation, along with De Beers India Explorations Pvt. Ltd, (for short 'DBIEPL Transferor Company No. 2') and De Beers India Geology Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'DBIGPL Transferor Company No. 3') and De Beers India Survey Private Ltd. (for short 'DBISPL Transferor Company No. 4') and De Beers India Prospecting Private Ltd. (for short 'DBIPPL Transferor Company No. 5') with De Beers India Private Ltd. (for short 'DBIPL/Transferee Company'). (All these five transferor-companies are thereinafter referred as 'Transferor- Companies').2. The Registered office of the Petitioners Company is situated at Advanced Business Centre, 83 Maker Chambers VI, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. The Petitioner Company is a Private Limited C...
AlarsIn and AlarsIn Marketing Employees' Union Vs. AlarsIn Pharmaceuti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR77; [2004(102)FLR1069]; (2004)IIILLJ870Bom; 2004(3)MhLj650; 2005(2)SLJ68(Bombay)
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition is directed against the Award dated 7th July 1995 passed by the 12th Labour Court, Bombay in Reference (IDA) No. 581 of 1988 thereby allowing the Reference partly. The Labour Court has directed that three persons who are members of the petitioner Union should be paid 3.3 years wages as compensation on account of their services being terminated, illegally. In respect of the other workmen, the Labour Court has held that since there has been compliance of Section 25F, their termination from service was legal.2. The petitioner Union represents the workmen who were working in the Mailing section of the first respondent Company. On 24th March 1986, Charter of Demands was submitted by the petitioner Union to the Company. The parties discussed the issue and the petitioner Union sought intervention of the conciliation on 8th April 1987 as no settlement was possible on all the demands. Immediately thereafter on 22nd April 1987, the Company decided to close down...
Dilip B. Joshi Vs. Vidya Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR866; 2004(5)BomCR43; 2004(3)MhLj427
V.C. Daga, J. 1. This petition raises a question whether or not Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The Facts :2. The facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell are that a dispute came to be filed in the Maharashtra State Co-operative Court, Pune; wherein written statement was filed by the opponents and proceedings were adjourned for framing issues and further hearing. One witness was examined in the said proceedings by the disputant. However, he could not be cross-examined by the Counsel for the opponent as he was absent when the case was called out and examination-in-chief was recorded. The dispute came to be decided ex-parte.3. On 6-3-2002 petitioner was served with notice of demand by the award holder-Bank demanding amount of award awarded by the Co-operative Court. The petitioner, after acquiring knowledge of adverse decree on 14-3-2002, applied for setting aside ex-parte decree alo...
In Re: Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR287; (2004)3CompLJ369(Bom); [2004]54SCL66(Bom)
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. Petitioner herein is Nicholas Piramal India Limited, a company having its registered office at 100, Centre Point, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai (for short 'NPIL' and/or 'transferee company') has filed the present company petition to obtain sanction of the court to the arrangement embodied in the Scheme of Amalgamation ('Scheme') with Canere Actives & Fine Chemicals Private Limited ('Canere' and/or 'transferor company') and whereby the undertaking of Canere shall, with effect from 1st October, 2003, the appointed date in terms of the Scheme of Arrangement, stand transferred to and be vested in the NPIL as going concern without any further act, deed, pursuant to Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Companies Act').2. The petitioner-company is a Public Limited Company, having its authorised, issued, subscribed and paid-up share capital as under :Authorised (Rs. )5,00,00,000 Equity Shares of Rs. 10 each 50,00,00,00015,00,000 Preference Shares of R...
Merind Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: [2004]136STC462(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. At the instance of the applicant, larger Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai, has referred the following questions for the decision of this Court under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 :(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of the Schedule, entry C-II-37, appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 as amended by Amendment Act No. XIX of 1996, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the diagnostic kits sold by the applicant by his invoice dated August 27, 1996 are not 'drugs' covered by the said Schedule, entry C-II-37 ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of the Schedule, entry C-II-37 appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in interpreting the word 'externally' appearing therein to mean 'used upon the body' and not 'used upon as well as outside the body', and in holding the sa...
In Re: Emco Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR451; (2004)3CompLJ411(Bom); [2004]54SCL76(Bom)
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present company petition has been filed by the EMCO Ltd. ('EMCO or Transferee Company') having its registered office at N-104, MIDC Area Jalgaon, under the provisions of Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Companies Act), thereby seek sanction of this Court, to the arrangement between Verticalbiz.com (India) Ltd. 'Transferor company or Verticalbiz'), whereby the undertaking of the transferor company should be merged in to the petitioner company and the Transferor Company would stands dissolved without winding up.2. Company Petition No. 1035/2003 has also been filed by the transferor Company (Verticalbiz) and therefore, the facts and reasoning of this petition, are also interlinked and connected with the said petition for all the purposes and accordingly, be treated, as part and parcel of this petition also.3. The petitioners company's authorized, issued, subscribed and paid up share capital is referred in para 4, which is reproduced as under; A...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Yeshwant Redkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR325; (2004)IIILLJ877Bom; 2004(3)MhLj988
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This appeal and the cross objection arise out of an oral judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 4th September 1996 : 1998(3)BomCR743 allowing the Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein against his dismissal from service but substituting the impugned departmental order passed by the Appellant with only compensation. The Appellant is aggrieved by that part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge which interferes with their disciplinary order and that is why it has filed this appeal. The respondent No. 1, on the other hand, is aggrieved by that part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge not granting the full relief of reinstatement with full backwages which the respondent No. 1 had sought in the said writ petition. That is why the respondent No. 1 has filed the cross objection.2. The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows :--The respondent No. 1 was working as an Acting Deputy Manager in-charge of Oil Moveme...
international Standards Certification (South Asia) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Inter ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR718
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The three Appellants are Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the suit. The Appellants are International Standards Certification (South Asia) Pvt. Ltd., Firdaus Jail Dastoor and his wife Mrs. Pervin Firdaus Dastoor. The Three Respondents are the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. International Standards Certifications Pty. Ltd., Saswad Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Mardeb Holdings Family Trust Pty. Ltd.2. The Appeal is against the order of the IXth Additional District Judge. Pune restraining the Appellants from using the words 'International Standards Certifications' as part of the first Appellant's Corporate name and/or trading style as well as the ISC logo so as pass off or enable others to pass off the services provided by Appellant No. 1 and/or the business of Appellant No. 1 as that of Respondent No. 1.FACTS3. Respondent No. 1 is a company incorporated under the laws of Australia. Appellant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. App...
Rhodia Limited, Vs. Neon Laboratories Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR703
V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.Heard rival parties. Perused petition, affidavits and counter affidavits.2. This petition takes exception to the order dated 7th February, 2004 passed below Exh.58 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Palghar ('trial Court' for short) in Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2002, and gives rise to a short question in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as to on whom burden to oust jurisdiction of the Court lies.THE FACTUAL SCENARIO :3. The factual scenario is straight forward.M/s. Neon Laboratories Limited, respondent herein is the original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for short), filed suit for specific performance of the agreements and for injunction against the petitioners herein, the original defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants' for short) being Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2002.4. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Compan...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »