Court : Mumbai
K.R. Shriram, J. 1. The Reliance Industries Limited (respondent no.1) and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Jamnagar Gujarat (respondent no.2) entered into a scheme of amalgamation under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act 1956. The provisions of section 391 r/w 394 of the Companies Act required obtaining of an order from the High Court in whose jurisdiction these companies are registered, sanctioning the Amalgamation Scheme filed by both, the transferor, as also the transferee company. The purpose and the object as to why both, the transferor and the transferee company had to obtain order from the court sanctioning the Scheme of Amalgamation is that, such a scheme of amalgamation must bind the dissenting members, as also, all the creditors of both the companies. As per the Scheme, from the appointed date, the assets/undertakings of the transferor company, viz., respondent no.2 was to, without any further Act, instrument or deed, stand transferred to and vested in or deemed to have bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. The Petitioner who is a third year student pursuing Diploma in Interior Design and Decoration Course (for short the 'said course') at the respondent no.2-college, by this Petition, has challenged the action of respondent nos.1 and 2 in denying the petitioner appearance for third year annual examination to be held in April, 2016. 2. Respondent no.2-Rachana Sansad College School of Interior Design is stated to be recognized and affiliated to the Respondent no.1-Maharashtra State Technical Board. The Diploma course is of three years with a pattern of an annual examination. The Petitioner was admitted for the First year of the said course for the Academic year 2013-14. First year examination was held in March 2014. The Petitioner cleared all subjects except the subject of 'Interior Design Theory'. As the rules permitted, the Petitioner was granted admission to the second year of the Diploma course as a ATKT (Allowed to keep term) student. 3. In October, 2014 Petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.K. Menon, J. 1. This is a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision for Respondent No.1 to 3 and the Respondent No.5, University of Mumbai debarring the Petitioners from appearing in the Third Year B.Com (T.Y.B.Com) examination to be held by Respondent No.5 commencing from 1st April, 2016. 2. The Petition was filed on 28th March, 2016 and was mentioned before us on 29th March, 2016 due to the inability of the regular Bench to take up the matter. Accordingly the matter was heard on 30th March, 2016 when only the University of Mumbai was represented, no notice having been served on the College authorities the petition was taken up for urgent hearing today 31st March, 2016. We have since heard the counsel on behalf of the parties. The impugned decision of the Respondents debarring the petitioners from appearing for the T.Y.B.Com examination to be conducted by Respondent No.5 and the consequent withdrawal of the T.Y.B.Com examination forms of the st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. This is an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act ) filed by the original Respondent-Billimoria and Co., challenging the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27 October 2015 passed in Arbitration Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, whereby, the award passed by the learned Arbitrator dated 27 March 2014 in respect of the claim for wrong deduction of liquidated damages is set aside. 2. Based upon a tender for general building work and civil work in respect of a project called Raheja Waterfront on land admeasuring 45 acres situated at Kulai Village, Mangalore, the Respondent submitted its offer. Appellant issued a letter of acceptance on 3 March 2012 and work order on 13 March 2012. The terms and conditions including the reciprocal obligations, were defined. Both the parties acted upon the same accordingly. The parties exchanged various correspondences including emails with regar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr Shirish Gupte, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Sanjay Udeshi, instructed by Mrs Chaitali Kutti on behalf of the petitioners; Mr Tele, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent no.1 and learned Counsel Mr R.F. Totala, assisted by Mr Rahul Totala on behalf of respondent no.2. 2. By way of present petitions, the petitioners - original accused have questioned the complaint filed by respondent no.2 herein bearing Misc. Application No.151 of 2010, filed before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna and impugned order dated 1st April, 2010, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directing the police officer to investigate into the matter under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") and submit charge-sheet or report on or before 22nd April, 2010 and consequential first information report, dated 1st April, 2010 registered with Sadar Bazar police station, Jalna. 3. The petitioners claim to be Executives of Max...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Second Appeal No. 255/2016 is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 9/2012, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopargaon and also against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 96/2013, which was pending in the Court of District Judge-2, Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. Regular Civil Suit No. 9/2012 was filed by in all eight traders for relief of declaration and injunction against present respondents, the State Government and the Collector. These eight traders challenged the decision in First Appeal, but out of the eight plaintiffs only five plaintiffs have challenged the decision of the First Appellate Court by filing present appeal. 2. Other Second Appeal No. 256/2016 is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 8/2012 and judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 95/2013. The said suit was filed by eight traders and all the traders have come to this Court to challenge the decisions of the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, five petitioners seek quashing of re-auction notice dated 21st of January, 2016 and an order dated 27th of January, 2016 cancelling allotment of sand ghats in their favour. This Court has, on 3rd of February, 2016, issued notice in the matter and while permitting re-auction by respondents, directed that no allotment be done in favour of successful bidder without permission of the Court. This interim order continues to operate even today. 2. Intervenor respondent no.4 Pradip Dhengre and Intervenor respondent no.5 Vardharaja Pilley claim that in consequential re-auction, they are the highest bidders entitled to allotment of sand ghats at Waki-A and Juni Kamptee-A. 3. This Court has accordingly permitted them to be impleaded as intervenors. 4. Looking to the nature of controversy and as requested by parties, we have heard learned Senior Advocate Shri C.S.Kaptan with Advocate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nanded in Special (ACB) Case No.2 of 1994 convicting the Appellant for the offences punishable Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as under: Conviction under SectionSentence7Simple Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.200/- in default Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days.13 (2)Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.300/- in default Simple Imprisonment for one month. 2. Prosecution case in brief is as under: On 12th September, 1993 Madhukar and Ramesh brothers-in-law of Complainant Shivram Tukaram Kharde were arrested by Shivajinagar Police Station, Nanded. They were taken to Tahsil office in the evening. Accused was serving as junior clerk in Tahsil office. He was to assist senior clerk PW-6 Padhye working in the office of Executive Magistrate. Complainant was informed that his brothers-in-law were arrested...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
P.C. 1. Heard Shri Shyam Dewani, learned Advocate for the applicant and Shri S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant/ State. 2. The applicant is apprehending arrest in crime registered against her for offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999. 3. Initially the crime was registered against the applicant and other co-accused for offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court, by the order dated 09-03-2016, directed issuance of notice to the non-applicant and granted interim protection to the applicant. Subsequently, additional offence punishable under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 is added in the crime registered against the applicant and co-accused. 4. The accusations against the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V.Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, heard learned Counsel for the parties forthwith finally. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 19 November 2011 passed by the Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane, whereby his caste claim Koli Mahadeo was not accepted. 3. Based upon the decision of the said Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee, prior to filing of the present Petition, Respondent No.3-Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai terminated the services of the Petitioner by an order dated 2 August 2014. The Petitioner therefore filed present Petition on 7 August 2014. The Respondents have filed their Reply. 4. After going through the submissions and the reasons given by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee, we have noted that the basic submission of Petitioner as recorded specifically in Ground no.3 to the Petition which is reproduced as under: (iii) It is respectfully submitted that the documents submi...
Tag this Judgment!