Mumbai Court November 2012 Judgments
Arunachalam Muthu Vs. Nafan Bv and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1. The Appellant has filed the above Appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) impugning the order dated 31st May 2012 passed by the Chairman, Company Law Board (CLB). By the said order, the Chairman, CLB has rejected Company Application No. 275 of 2012 moved by the Appellant under Regulation 4 and Regulation 44 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 (the CLB Regulations). The said Application (which was made to the Chairman and not to the Principal Bench of the CLB) was for the following main reliefs: (a) The above captioned Company petition be transferred to the Southern Bench of the Hon'ble Company Law Board for hearing to be completed before the Hon'ble Company Law Board Member Shri Kanthi Narahari on the already agreed dates or any other mutually convenient dates; (b) In the alternative, the Hon'ble Company Law Board Member Shri Kanthi Narahari be permitted to preside over the Hon'ble Company Law Board, Western Bench for the limited purpose of completing th...
Tag this Judgment!Sparebanken Sogn Og Fjordane Vs. M.V. Bos Angler and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Admit, by consent made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service on behalf of the respective Respondents. By consent, the Appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This Appeal arises from a judgment of a Learned Single Judge dated 19 October 2012 in a Motion which was taken out in an Admiralty Suit. 3. The suit in the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court has been instituted against a vessel, M.V. Bos Angler, and her owners for a decree in an amount of Norwegian Kroners 176.500 million equivalent to Rs.143.43 Crores together with interest. The Plaintiff, in appeal in these proceedings, is a bank incorporated under the laws of Norway and seeks a declaration of the existence of a valid and subsisting first priority registered mortgage on the vessel. The Plaintiff sought arrest and sale of the vessel in the exercise of the jurisdiction in rem, and application of the sale proceeds towa...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Ramrao Rangnekar Vs. Narayan Sakharam Sawant and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Oral Judgment: The land owners have filed these Petitions questioning the common Judgment dated 27.9.1996 delivered by the M.R.T. Mumbai in two Revision Applications numbered as Tenancy A.76 of 1995 and Tenancy No.A-189 of 1995. These Revisions were field by the deceased Respondent no.1 challenging the order dated 12.12.1994 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Sawantwadi and order dated 28.2.1991 passed by the S.D.O.Sawantwadi. Nobody has appeared for legal heirs of deceased Respondent no.1. The AGP has opposed the Petition on behalf of the Respondent no.2 State of Maharashtra and its Officers. 2. Mr.Karandikar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the agricultural lands belonging to the present Petitioner were let out to the deceased Respondent no.1 and he was declared to be deemed purchaser. He was expected to pay purchase price in 12 instalments of Rs.689/- plus yearly interest from 1974 and last instalment was payable on 22.9.1986. He did not pay the single instalme...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Prakash Vinayak Naik Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The Petitioner, who initially was certificated as physically handicapped with 55% disability due to orthopedic cause and lastly certificated as medically unfit with complete and permanent incapacity due to Hameplegia, has invoked the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rules made thereunder (for short hereinafter referred to as the Disabilities Act). 2. By Orders dated 12.07.2005 and 28.07.2005, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 terminated the Petitioner's services from the post of Subordinate Engineer retrospectively w.e.f. 11.04.205 by exercising the powers under Rule 126A (1)(a) of the Pune Municipal Corporation's Service Rules. The Respondents being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 fall within the ambit of Establishment and the Petitioner's physical condition falls within the ambit of Disability as contemplated under the Disabilities ...
Tag this Judgment!Tarun @ Hanif Tarapad Muzumdar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
A.R. Joshi, J. Heard rival arguments on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant/orig.accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 22nd June, 2004 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.382 of 2003. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer RI for one month. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under : Initially after the marriage, the marital life between appellant/accused and his wife victim Reena, was normal. Thereafter for about 3 and 1/2 years, appellant/accused left the house and went to his native place and performed second marriage. Then again he returned to the house where victim Reena i.e. his first wife was residing. She was not ready to accept him and to cohabit with him. However, the relatives convinced her that there ...
Tag this Judgment!Kadar Sattar Solanki Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
A.S. Oka, J. 1. Rule. The learned APP waives service for the Respondents. Taken up for final hearing. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the Respondents. 2. We have perused the reply dated 12th October, 2012 filed by Dr. Sandip Gulabrao Pakhale, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bhiwandi (West) Division, Bhiwandi, Thane. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that earlier he was a practicing Advocate. Now the Petitioner is serving as the Municipal Secretary of the Bhiwandi Nizampura City Municipal Corporartion. On 21st June, 2012, the Petitioner was plying his scooter. At about 5.45 p.m., the Petitioner reached a place known as Dhamankarnaka at Bhiwandi. The second Respondent who is the police constable came there and instructed the Petitioner to stop the vehicle. The second Respondent wanted to check his driving licence and documents of registration of the vehicle. It is alleged that the Petitioner informed the second Respondent that by mistake, he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Rama Shid Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
A.R. Joshi, J. Heard rival submissions on this criminal appeal preferred by the appellant - accused challenging the judgment and order dated 31st March 2005 passed by the IInd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.166 of 2004. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant-accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nut shell is as under: The first informant P.W. No.1 Navnath Shid and the present appellant-accused had their agricultural properties adjacent to each other. There was dispute on account of the...
Tag this Judgment!Sbi Global Factors Ltd. Vs. K. Sera Sera Production Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
The Petitioner is a financial institution and has invoked Section 433(e) and (f) read with Sections 434(1)(a) and 439 of the Companies Act (for short, the Act) and seeking an order of winding up. The Respondent Company has been listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), National Stock Exchange (NSE) and Luxembourg Stock Exchange. 2. On 4 November, 2005 and 20 May 2006, the Petitioner granted to the Respondent, Reverse Factoring facility initially for a sum of Rs.14 crores, which was thereafter, increased to Rs.30 crores. In 2008, the dispute arose between the parties. On 7 July, 2008, the Petitioner issued a recall notice against the Respondent. 3. In 2009, the Petitioner instituted Company Petition No.884 of 2009 in this Court; Summary Suit No.2238 of 2009 in this Court; and various criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The parties settled the disputes/claims recorded accordingly in terms of the Sanction Letter in September 2009. On 29 Septembe...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Gudlar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-corruption Branc ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Court dated 25.10.2012 whereby an application filed by the respondents under Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 for extension of time came to be partly allowed and the period was extended for a period of 90 days. 5. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that this Court by order dated 15.10.2012 had remanded the matter to the learned Special Judge to decide the extension as prayed by the respondents afresh in accordance with the material as available as on 01.09.2012 after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Shri S. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Upendra T. Kapadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. This appeal by the revenue under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is against the order dated 26/10/2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal") relating to the assessment year 2004-05. 2. Being aggrieved, the following questions of law have been formulated by the appellant for the consideration by this Court. A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.52,85,205/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 43B of the Income Tax Act being interest payable by the assessee to Shree Mahalaxmi Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited even though there was no evidence furnished by the assessee to substantiate the claim that the assessee had made the payment of interest before the filing of his return of income? B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that Shree Mahalaxmi Mercantile Co-o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »