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: Sanvijay Alloys (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR481; [2004]122CompCas754(Bom); [2004]54SCL213(Bom)
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present Company Petition has been filed in the matter of Scheme of Amalgamation of Sanvijay Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Sanvijay Industries Pvt. Ltd., Sanvijay Steels Pvt. Ltd., with Sanvijay Rolling Engineering Ltd.2. The Petitioners Company are the first Transferor Company having its registered office at 502, Gupta Bhavan, Ahmedabad Street, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai, with effect from 1-12-2003.3. The Second Transferor Company are Sanvijay Industries Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office on the same address of 1st transferor company.4. The third transferor company is Sanvijay Steels Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 504, Raghav Ratna Tower, Chirag Ali Lane, Abidas, Hyderabad 500 001 (A.P.). All these Companies therefore, hereinafter referred as 'Transferor Companies'.5. The transferee Company Sanvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd., having its registered office at 502, Gupta Bhavan, Ahmedabad Street, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-09 (Maharashtra).6. The details of t...
Global Trust Bank Ltd. Vs. Killick Nixon Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC458; [2005]128CompCas1007(Bom)
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present Company Petition has been filed by the petitioner Global Trust Bank Ltd., a Banking Corporation incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Companies Act') against Killick Nixon Ltd., (for short 'Company') a public limited Company, having its registered office at Killick House, Killick Estate, Baji Pasalkar Marg, Chandivili, Mumbai-400 072 (Maharashtra) and thereby invoked the provisions under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Act with a prayer to wind up the company and appointment of the provisional Liquidator, and/or the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay. The petitioner Bank has basically contended that the company has inability to pay the debt of Rs. 13,99,00,377/- and interest thereon, at the rate of 16.5% p.a., in spite of due and statutory notice under the Act, dated 23rd July, 2002. Therefore, the present winding up company petition has been filed on 18.10.2002. As the Company neglected and has inability to pay the debt, and...
In Re: L and T Finance Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC321; 2004(5)BomCR587; [2005]124CompCas41(Bom); [2004]54SCL455(Bom)
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present company petition has been filed by the petitioner-company L & T Finance Limited, having its registered office at L & T House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai and thereby invoked the provisions of Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Companies Act') and thereby prayed to wind up the respondent-company, namely Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., having its registered office at Ganesh House, off. Andheri-Kurla Road, Marol Naka Andheri (East), Mumbai. That the respondent-company some time on 8th May, 2000, approached the petitioners and requested for finance and accordingly, the petitioner-company had agreed and agreement dated 8th May, 2000, was entered between the parties. The respondent-company defaulted and made late payment of the instalments, in spite of the said agreement. On 6th May, 2000, prior to the execution of the loan agreement, the respondent had undertaken to make the payment, within the time period specified in the schedule contended...
In Re: Morarjee Goculdas Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR836; (2004)3CompLJ380(Bom); [2004]55SCL680(Bom)
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present company petition has been filed by the company known as the Morarjee Goculdas Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd., a company deemed to be incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Administrative Building, Morarjee Mills Compound, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai, whereby Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act have been invoked for sanctioning the scheme of arrangement whereby the Morarjee Goculdas Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. (for short 'Morarjee', 'petitioner company' and/or 'transferor company' shall stand demerged or transferred to and vested in Caner Actives and Fine Chemicals (P) Ltd. (for short 'Caner' and/or 'transferee company' as a going concern with effect from 1 December 2003 in terms of the scheme of arrangement (for short 'scheme') without further act, deed, matter or thing pursuant to Section 394 of the Act, and, inter alia, for vesting the Tools Division of the petitioner company without any furth...
In Re: Indusind Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR221; (2004)4CompLJ394(Bom); 2004(4)MhLj524; [2004]55SCL37(Bom)
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. This Company Petition has been taken out by the petitioner IndusInd Bank Limited under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Companies Act') for sanction of Scheme of Arrangement (for short 'Scheme') between Ashok Leyland Finance Limited (for short 'ALFL' or 'transferor company') and IndusInd Bank Limited (for short 'IndusInd' or 'petitioner-company' or 'transferee-company') and their respective members and creditors.2. The petitioner company herein, i.e., IndusInd Bank Limited has its registered office at 2401, General Thimmayya Road, Cantonment, Pune 411001.3. The share capital of the petitioner-company as on 31st March, 2004 and as on 31st January, 2004 is reproduced in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Petition. The registered office of the transferor company is situated at Sudarshan Building, 86, Chamiers Road, Chennai 600018. The details of the transferor company's share capital is reproduced in Para 10 of the Petition.4. In view of the obje...
Pulsar International Ltd. Vs. Prime Investrade Finance Services Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR236; [2005]127CompCas579(Bom); (2004)4CompLJ397(Bom); [2004]55SCL32(Bom)
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. Petitioner-company viz. M/s. Pulsar International Limited having its registered office at Jaishree, 28, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Vakola, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400057, has invoked the provisions of Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('Companies Act') with basic prayers to wind up the respondent-company viz. Prime Investrade Finance Services Limited, having its registered office at Haji Adam Mansion, 2nd floor, 6, Homji Street, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai.2. Basic facts are that the respondent company is a Member of the National Stock Exchange. The petitioner-company had trade transaction with the respondent company. By cheque dated 24th September, 1996, a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid by the petitioner to the respondent company. In respect of the said trade transactions, the petitioner made profit of Rs. 1,02,861 as per the Bills raised by the respondent-company on the petitioner. The trading facilities of the respondent company were terminated...
Vishweshwar Shankarrao Deshmukh and anr. Vs. Narayan Vithoba Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR625; 2005(2)BomCR491; 2004(4)MhLj12
S.T. Kharche, J. 1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, the unsuccessful defendants throughout have filed this Second Appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 19th December, 1990, passed by learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1989, whereby the Appeal has been dismissed with costs and the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court on 31st December, 1987 directing both the Defendants to pay jointly and severally damages to the tune of Rs. 12,500.00 on account of malicious prosecution has been confirmed. Relevant facts are required to be stated as under :--2. The respondent (paintiff) was the Sarpanch of Village Shirputi in the year 1980 and the defendant No. 1 was in the service as Gram Sevak under the Zilla Parishad and the defendant No. 2 was the Teacher in the school run by Zilla Parishad. The plaintiff contended that he had made several reports against the defendants about their misconduct....
R. Daga and anr. Vs. Mr. and Dr. Thacker and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Bom412; 2004(6)BomCR280
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present Chamber Summons has been taken out. pending Execution Application by the Plaintiff No. 1 for the relief namely notice to the defendants under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code be dispensed with, defendants be directed to instruct their Advocates to hand over six cheques mentioned in the Escrow letter dated 7th December, 2000 to the plaintiff and/or to issue plaintiff cheques for the same amount, order of injunction from any manner alienate or disposing of or parting with the possession of the immovable property, to disclose their assets in accordance with Order 21 Rule 41 of Civil Procedure Code. The Plaintiffs have added Mr. Mahendra R. Thakur as respondent in the present Chamber Summons and accordingly Chamber Summons dated 28th January, 2004 along with the affidavit and documents, prayed for reliefs as referred above.2. The defendant through one Mr. Dilip Thacker, partner of defendant No. 1 and being the defendant No. 3 resisted the said ...
Deorao Marotrao Bhagatkar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR828; 2005(1)MhLj111
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant.2. This is a revision application filed under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.3. The case is under prosecution by the Central Bureau of Investigation. This is a revision petition by accused making a grievance that important prosecution witness Prabhuprasad Kisanlal cited by the prosecution, has not been examined. Application was filed by the accused seeking order that said unexamined prosecution witness be summoned and be examined. This application was opposed by the prosecution on the ground that accused was trying to delay the trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the said application and rejected it. The rejection of the application is, inter-alia, on the following grounds :-(a) Upon the prosecution admitting the documents, case was fixed for arguments;(b) The accused has submitted applic...
J. Ravindranath J. Suryamarayama Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj129
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Heard with consent of parties.2. The present applications are filed by the applicants in the background that the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur has rejected two applications filed by them under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by common order dated 31-3-2004.3. The Range Forest Officer (Protection), Chandrapur has registered an offence punishable under Section 26(l)(g) of the Indian Forest Act against the present applicants being POR No. 1371/22 dated 14th March, 2004. The applicants herein apprehend arrest and, therefore, had moved the Sessions Court and now this Court.4. Brief background on which there is no serious controversy can be narrated as follows :(a) 172.54 hectare of forest land has been acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The Western Coalfields Limited runs collieries commonly known as Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery within said land.(b) The Western Coalfields Limited had applied...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »