Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-24-1985
Reported in : [1987]61CompCas548(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The plaintiffs, Tri-Sure India Ltd., have instituted this suit on September 20, 1978, for recovery of sum of Rs. 63,84,792 with interest thereon at the rate of 16.25% per annum from the date of the suit till recovery and costs of the suit from the defendants.2. The plaintiffs were incorporated as a private limited company in West Bengal under the name of Indian Flange Mfg. Co. Ltd. on February 10, 1960. The name was changed to Tri-Sure India (Pvt.) Ltd. on April 22, 1960, and the registered office was transferred to Bombay in the middle of the year 1962. The company was a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Flange Mfg. Co., United States of America. On February 24, 1975, the plaintiffs became a public limited company. The financial year of the plaintiffs is from September 1, to August 31.3. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm of chartered accountants and is carrying on business for last over 85 years and has acquired reputation all over the country. Defendants Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-10-1985
Reported in : AIR1985Bom347
1. This Second Civil Appeal directed against the judgment dt. 31st Aug. 1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-(a) Whether the provisions of Art. 2307 of the Portuguese Civil Code are attracted to the case : (b) Whether the lower Courts ought not to have held that on the facts and circumstances of the cases the purported licence granted to the appellant's ancestors was irrecovable; and (c) Whether the prayer of mandatory injunction was not bared by limitation.2. At the hearing, however, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant restricted his submissions to the first two questions and did not press the third. Therefore, while disposing of this appeal, I will address myself only to the said first two questions.3. A suit for possession has been filed by the respondent I against the appellant herein and the respondent 2 on the grounds that there exists a house bearing Gram Panchayat No. 74 situated at Vithalpur,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-17-1985
Reported in : 1986(1)BomCR613
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing process issued against them by the Judicial Magistrate (AC) Pune, in Criminal Case No. 1041 of 1985 filed by the second respondent Shri S.S. Gadhoke, a builder and contractor, for offence under section 500 read with section 34 IPC, on the ground that some of the statement in the letter dated 20th May, 1978, addressed by the first petitioner to the second petitioner, are defamatory.2. At the material time, i.e. in May 1978, petitioner No. 1, who is now Chief Engineer of P.W.D., Bombay Zone, was working as Superintending Engineer in Pune National Highway Circle, while petitioner No. 2, who retired from the Government service as Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in the month of March 1985, was Chief Engineer of P.W. Region, Pune.3. The second respondent is a civil engineer and is a partner of S.S. Gadhoke & Sons, a firm of civil engineers and contractors. He is also a partner of another firm M/s. Ranjeet Cons...
Tag this Judgment!