Mumbai Court June 2013 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 Loot (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Reliance Capital Limited and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
Oral Judgment: By consent the matters were heard finally on 12 and 13 June 2013 and as the common parties and issues are involved, heard accordingly and therefore this common Judgment. 2 The Petitioners-original Respondents, Borrowers-Guarantors, have invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act), and thereby challenged an ex-parte award dated 15 June 2012 passed by the sole Arbitrator, (Respondent No.2) and in favour of the Financer Company-Respondent No.1. (for short, the financer). 3 The operative part of the Award is as under:- a) The Respondents do jointly and/or severally pay to the Claimants a sum of Rs.2,19,28,031.84/- (Rupees Two Crore Nineteen Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Thirty One and paise Eighty Four only), together with the interest thereon @ 15.25% p.a. from 10th April, 2012, as per the foreclosure statement, till payment or realization thereof. b) It is hereby declared that the property to viz., Unit No. 002/B at Groun...
Rajesh M. Mahtani Vs. R.M. Khan, Hon. Arbitrator Appointed by the Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
Oral Judgment:- Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2 The Petitioner who is Respondent in Arbitration Proceedings initiated by the original Claimants (Respondent Bank) under Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short, MSCS Act), has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). 3 Admittedly, the Arbitrator was appointed by the Registrar under the MSCS Act. The Petitioner participated in the proceedings and thereafter filed an Application alleging fraud against the Bank and also contended that the Arbitration proceedings, so initiated, is not maintainable and thereby even challenged the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal on that ground. By order dated 23 June 2012, the learned Arbitrator by reasoned order rejected the said Application and observed as under: It is not the allegations of the Respondent No.1 that on the other ground this authority has no jurisdiction and the claim petition is not ma...
Laxman Bhaguji Kawade Vs. Dnyaneshwar Krishnaji Takalkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
Oral Order: 1 Rule. Respondent No.1 is the contesting Respondent. He and others are duly served. Mr.Shah is appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Competent Authority, Pune dated 19.07.2011 under which the only prayer clause (c) of the Application (Exhibit-1 in Misc. Application No.5/2011) made by the Respondent No.1 (Dnyaneshwar Takalkar) has been granted. That was an application made by him in the form of obstruction/objection to the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority dated 29.09.2007 in Application No.25/2007. 3 A brief reference is required to be made to the facts so as to appreciate the arguments particularly of Mr.Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 4 There is a immovable property which is a house property. That was initially owned by the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner claims to have purchased the said property from the Res...
M/S Faridabad Metal Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Anurag Deepak, Sole ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
Common Judgment: By consent of parties, these five petitions alongwith other ten matters were heard finally together and are being disposed of by a common Judgment. 2. By these petitions filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short herein after referred as Arbitration Act 1996), the petitioners seek declaration that the mandate of the learned Arbitrator, respondent No.1 herein stood terminated under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act 1996, and the petitioner is entitled to approach the Micro and Small Scale Enterprises Facilitation Council constituted under the provisions of the Micro, Small Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short hereinafter referred as MSME Act) and the said Council is entitled in law to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 3. Relevant facts in ARBP No.1193 Of 2012: (a) The petitioner is a small scale industry registered under the provisions of MSME Act with District Industries Centre, Faridabad, Haryana on 4th Au...
Satpal P. Malhotra and Others Vs. Puneet Malhotra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2013
By this appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act, 1996), the appellants seek to challenge the order dated 31st May, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge 1, Pune by which the learned District Judge allowed the arbitration application filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 by the respondents and has set aside the award dated 21st July, 2007 made by the learned sole arbitrator appointed by the parties to adjudicate upon the dispute that had arisen between the parties. By the said award, the learned sole arbitrator had awarded some of the claims made by the appellants. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal and cross objections as emerge from the pleadings and documents filed by both parties are as under:- FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The Appellants and Respondent Nos.1 to 5 (the Respondents) are all members of the Malhotra family of Pune. Appellant No.1 is the father of Appellant Nos. 4 and 7...
Ms. Komal Manu Sahani Vs. Pure Drinks Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2013
1. The short question that arises for consideration of the Court in this Petition is whether on the death of accused, the proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 abate, or, the same can be continued by substituting him with his heirs? 2. The brief facts leading to the question are that the Petitioner is the daughter of one Mrs. Ranjit Charles Singh, the accused in C.C. No.353/SS/2011 filed by Respondent No.1/company under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, (for short the Act), for continued unauthorized occupation of the residential premises owned by the company. The original accused expired on 30th January, 2012, after issuance of process by the Court against her. A few days prior to her death, the petitioner herein, her married daughter, came to the disputed premises for the purpose of looking after her. The petitioner, however, continued to occupy the premises even after the death of the mother. Therefore, on 2nd May, 2012, the company filed application at Exhi...
Sharda Polycolours Private Limited and Others Vs. the State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2013
Oral Order: By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are the accused accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively in Complaint Case No.493/SS/2011, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, at Mazgaon, Mumbai, challenge the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to entertain the said complaint and try the case . 2 The petitioner no.1 is a Private Limited Company, and the other petitioners are the Directors thereof. The said case is in respect of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as N.I.Act for the sake of brevity), and has been initiated on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 also a Private Limited Company herein. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the respondent no.2 shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the complainant' and the petitioners as 'the accused'. 3 The case of the complainant company is that, it had, as per the orders placed...
Smt. Kusum Harilal Soni and Another Vs. Smt. Chandrika Nandlal Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2013
1 Applicant, the daughter of the Respondent, has taken out this Chamber Summons to set aside the warrant of attachment of the immovable as well as movable properties therein i.e. Flat No.408, Saidham Co.op. Society, Sodawala Lane, Borivli (West), Mumbai, being not a party to the proceedings between the Plaintiff and the Respondent-Judgment Debtor. 2 The brief facts as per the applicant are as under: (a) On 11.06.1995, the Agreement was executed between the Respondent and the Applicant by which the Respondent agreed to sell flat No.408, Saidham Co-operative Society, Sodawala Lane, Borivli (West), Mumbai-400 092 to the Applicant for a total sum of Rs.4,25,000/- which was then the prevailing actual price of the said flat. (b) On 06.12.2000, the Contempt Authority- Bandra passed an order directing Chandrika Nandlal Mehta (Respondent-Judgment Debtor) to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. (c) On 0.04.2001, CRA No.678 of 2001 was dismissed. On 10.04.2001, Special Leave Petition No.7022 of...
Dhfl Venture Capital Fund Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service on behalf of the Respondents. By consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petition seeks to impugn the legality of a notice dated 18 May 2012 by which an assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09 is sought to be reopened under Section 148 of the Income Tax 1961. 3. The Petitioner is registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India as a Venture Capital Fund under the SEBI (Venture Capital Fund) Regulations 1996. The Petitioner was constituted under a trust deed dated 19 August 2005 of Dewan Housing Financial Corporation Limited. The object of the trust is to carry on activity of a venture capital fund and to raise resources through schemes to make portfolio investments. The Petitioner floated the DHFL Real Estate Management Fund 1 (Dream Fund - 1) which is a close ended fund with a focus in the Indian ...
irappa and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-14-2013
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1.Criminal Appeal No. 406/1998 has been filed by the original accused no.1 Irappa Madhavrao Tondare against his conviction under Section 304 II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC in brief) by Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.131/1995. Criminal Appeal No. 133/1999 and Criminal Revision Application No.96/1999 were also preferred against the impugned judgment and order. Criminal Appeal No.133/1999 has been filed by State against original accused No.1 Irappa Madhavrao Tondare and his brothers original accused no.2 Shivaji, accused no.3 Navnath and accused No.4 Tanaji with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the accused persons and to convict them for offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Suman, wife of deceased victim Nagnath Sadashiv Tondare filed Revision against acquittal of original accused Nos. 2 to 4. By order dated 2nd September, 2003 this Court admitted App...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »