Mumbai Court June 2005 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.
The Chairman/Secretary, Janseva Education Society, Vs. the State of Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR666; 2005(4)BomCR486; [2006(108)FLR595]; 2005(3)MhLj989
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The 1st petitioner is a Chairman of one Janseva Education Society which is running a secondary school in village Palpene, Taluka Guhagar, District Ratnagiri. One Mahadev Vishram Palkar was employed in the school run by the Society known as Vardan New English School. He died on 1st May 1997.3. Petitioner No. 2 was working as a Peon in this school from 1987. His appointment is approved in 1989. He made an application for the vacancy arising out of the death of this Mahadev Palkar. However, the 1st Petitioner-Society first gave a letter of appointment as a Peon dated 19th May 1997 to respondent No. 3 who is the younger son of the deceased Mahadeo Palkar. Prior thereto, the Society passed a resolution on 18th May 1997 appointing respondent No. 3 in the post of a Peon. In paragraph 4 of the present petition, it is specifically averred that the letter of appointment was sent to respondent No. 3 on 19th May 1997 but respondent No...
Sicom Limited Vs. Shri Parmod Lath and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR498; [2005]127CompCas170(Bom); 2005(3)MhLj875
ORDERS.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is filed under section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act. Respondent No. 4 in the present petition is a company and the principal borrower. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the directors and guarantors who have guaranteed the repayment of the loan amount lent and advanced to the 1st respondent company.2. Some of the material facts of the present case, briefly enumerated are as under :3. The respondent No. 4 requested the petitioner to grant financial assistance of Rs. 75 lacs by way of equity participation in the equity shares of the 4th respondent company. It was agreed that the respondent No. 4 shall issue 7,50,000 equity shares of the face value of Rs. 10/- each on par to the petitioner and in consideration thereof the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. 75 lacs to the respondent No. 4 as and by way of financial assistance to set up a project at village Walkhed, Tal. Dindori, Dist. Nasik in the State of Maharashtra. The respondent No...
National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Nocil Employees Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR505; [2005]126CompCas922(Bom); (2006)2CompLJ350(Bom); [2005]62SCL373(Bom)
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. These three company petitions are filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. By these petitions the National Organic Chemical Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as Nocil) has put forward a scheme for restructuring the business of the said company by demerger of the specified areas and liability of the petrochemicals and Polymer Division and vesting the same in Relene Petrochemicals Private Limited and demerger of plastic products Division of Nocil and vesting in Nocil Petrochemicals Limited. It has also put forward a scheme for compromise with creditors and shareholders of Nocil with effect from 30.9.2003.2. The original company known as Nocil was incorporated with the object to run the business of manufacturing in chemicals and chemical components and chemical products of various kinds and other allied objects. The company had its authorised share capital of Rs. 12,00,00,00,000/-divided into 1,20,00,00,000/-equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. Th...
New Standard Engg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR9; IV(2006)BC346; 2005(6)BomCR386; 2005(3)MhLj1039
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,08,650/- with interest on Rs. 1,75,256/-. The claim in the present case arises in the background of following facts.2. The plaintiffs are a company and are inter alia carrying on business of supply of various machineries. It is the case of the plaintiffs that sometime in or about 20-1-1975 the defendant issued a tender notice and pursuant to the said tender notice the plaintiffs submitted an offer for supply of 2 numbers design, manufacture and supply of 70 ton capacity Hoist having 12 metres lift conforming to the defendant's technical specifications for the price of Rs. 4,22,370/-. The said offer was given by the plaintiffs on 11-2-1975 to the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, under the terms and conditions of the said offer it was inter alia pointed out that the payment in respect of the said supply would as under :--15% of the total price was to be paid to the plaintiff as advance...
Vishnupant Alias Dhondopant Wamanrao Jamkar Vs. Mahadev Santuka and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR136; 2005(4)MhLj278
Naik A.B., J.1. The present proceedings arise out of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 19 and Section 32 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short).2. The petitioner, by moving the Additional Tahsildar, Degloor, by that application sought recovery of possession from the respondents herein, of land Survey No. 29, admeasuring 20 A : 2 G: to the extent of 10 A 6 G situated at village Jamb (BK). Tq, Mulched District. Nanded (hereinafter 'suit land' for short). The petitioner, inter alia, contended that he is the owner of the suit land; he acquired ownership of the suit land on the basis of Civil Court decree. Though Survey No. 29 admeasuring 20 A, but this proceedings relate to possession of 10 A 6 G only. The rest of the land out of Survey No. 29 came to be declared in favour of one Santuka, the predecessor of the respondent under Section 38-E of the Act, hence this proceedings are ...
N.A. Khan Vs. Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR379; 2005(4)MhLj625
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Haq, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mrs. Dangre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 3.2. Shri Haq, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that on 28-7-1959 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Primary School run by the respondent No. 1 Municipal Council. The petitioner served in the said School till 3-8-1960. On 4-8-1960, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Municipal Mahatma Gandhi Vidyalaya run by the respondent No. 1 Municipal Council. The petitioner was given a technical break from 1-5-1961 to 30-6-1961 (vacation period) and for the period from 1-5-1962 to 1-7-1962 (vacation and transfer period). It is submitted that Chief Officer of respondent No. 1 Municipal Council condoned the technical breaks in the service of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was in the continuous service of respondent No. 1 Municipal Cou...
Dsq Holdings Ltd. and ors. Vs. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: 3(2006)BC214
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicants.2. The applicants are seeking quashing of process issued against them under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said process has been issued against them in Criminal Case No. 46/S/2002 which is pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai.3. The applicants are challenging the order passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai whereby the process under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be issued against them in Criminal Case No. CC No. 46/S/2002 presently numbered as CC No. 132/SS/2005. The applicants had preferred an application for recalling of process before the learned Magistrate. However, in the meantime, as the judgment in the case of Adalat Prasad came to be reported, the said application was not pressed by the applicants and the applicants have approached this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.4. Howeve...
Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit and ors. Vs. Tanaji ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC332
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Leave to amend granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.2. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for State.3. The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 2nd April, 2005 and 8th May, 2005 passed by the learned Magistrate in Complaint No. S/86/6/2005. The said complaint is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant had filed Misc. Application No. 324 of 2004 for condonation of delay in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. By order dated 2.4.2005, the said delay came to be condoned. This order is also impugned in the present petition. It is seen that the delay was only of six days. The last date for filing the complaint was 30.6.2004. However, the complaint came to be filed on 5.7.2004. The reason for the delay was that from 26.6.2004 to 5.7.2005 the complainant was confined to his bed on account of serious case of hypertension. It is an admitted fact that the nece...
Ramona M. Chandiramani Vs. Arunoday Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: II(2007)BC300
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Heard the learned advocate for the Petitioner.2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of process issued against petitioner under Section 138 r.w. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said process has been issued against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 835/5/2002 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai.3. However, in my opinion, the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy i.e. of preferring a revision before the Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. Hence, I expressed the view that it would be more appropriate that the petitioner prefers revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process.4. On expressing this opinion, the learned Counsel advocate for the petitioner pointed out a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. III : (2004)7SCC338 . The learned Advocate has submitted...
K.M. Venkateshwaran Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)BC509
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of process issued against petitioner under Sections 138 read with 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said process has been issued against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 733/S/2003 which is pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai. The petitioner preferred an application for recalling of process before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, however, the said application came to be withdrawn by the petitioner with a liberty to approach this Court in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Adalat Prasad's case.3. However, in my opinion, the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy i.e. of preferring a revision before the Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. Hence, I expressed the view that it would be more appropriate that the petitioner prefers a revision before the concerned Sessions Court a...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »