Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-05-2007
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR611; 2007(5)BomCR481; (2007)109BOMLR1959; 2008(1)MhLj753
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Proprietor of M/s Akanksha International, which has purchased the land, building, plant and machinery of M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Private Limited in auction sale conducted by the secured creditor under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Securitisation Act, 2002'), for direction to the respondent Electricity Distribution Company to consider application for fresh electricity connection to the petitioner and to quash and set aside the letter dated 1.6.2007 issued by the respondent to the petitioner as illegal. By the said letter the respondent has insisted on the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,30,78,926.87 plus interest which were arrears of electricity charges due from erstwhile consumer M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Private Limited.2. The petitioner stated that the State Bank of India, Jalna Branch had granted fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-10-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)ALLMR651; 2007(5)BomCR1; 2007(5)MhLj341
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The order of reference dated 16-1-2006, which has occasioned the constitution of this Full Bench, has been passed by the learned Single Judge in view of a divergence of the views of the Division Benches of this Court, the first being in Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehra v. Indravati Dwarkadas Mehra : AIR2001Bom470 and the second in Letters Patent Appeal No. 129 of 1993, Bhagirathi Lingawade and Ors. v. Laxmi Silk Mills, decided on 3-9-1993. The provisions of Section 41(1) of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (for short, 'PSCC Act') and Section 5(4A) of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Rent Act') crop up for consideration in these petitions. In view of a conflict in the interpretation made by the Division Benches, in the aforesaid cases, on the language of these provisions the learned Single Judge has made a reference to the Larger Bench. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice has accordingly constituted this Full Bench to dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-15-2007
Reported in : [2009]149CompCas129(Bom); [2008]82SCL303(Bom)
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. A founder father, late Dhirubhai Ambani set up the Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) some time in the year 1973, who ventured along with the time, into oil, gas, refining and exploration apart from other textile, yarn, polyester, petrochemicals and communication business and later stages of life, with two sons-Mr.Mukesh and Mr. Anil Ambani. All are aware of these facts and figures specially the shareholders of the respective companies at all material times.2. Some time in the year 1999, the Government announced a New Exploration and Licensing Policy, 1999 (NELP) This policy, for the first time, provided that various petroleum blocks could be awarded for exploration, development and production of petroleum and gas to private entities.3. By virtue of Article 297 of the Constitution of India, the Petroleum in its natural state in the territory waters and the continental shelf of India is vested in the Union of India (The Government). The Oil Fields (Regulation and Dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-10-2007
Reported in : 2007(6)BomCR156
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard at length the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records as well as written submissions. We have also gone through the various statutory provisions referred to in the course of arguments as also all the decisions relied upon by the learned advocates in their oral as well as written submissions. 2. The appeal and the cross appeal arise from the award dated 23rd June, 1993 passed by the Reference Court of Raigad at Alibag in the Land Acquisition Reference No. 184 of 1986 which is a common award by which the Reference Court has disposed of 79 land acquisition reference cases. The appellants in First Appeal No. 455 of 1994 are the respondents in First Appeal No. 741 of 1995 and are hereinafter called as 'the Government', and the appellants in First Appeal No. 741 of 1995 are the respondents in First Appeal No. 455 of 1994 and are hereinafter called as 'the claimants'.3. The land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-16-2007
Reported in : 2007(5)ALLMR540; 2008(1)BomCR485
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule in Writ Petition Nos. 5081/2006, 653/2007, 1250/2007, 5062/2006, 5305/2006 and 5847/2006 returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. Writ Petition No. 5081/2006 was filed in this Court on 9.10.2006. On 11.10.2006 this Court issued notice before admission returnable after four weeks and made an interim order preventing respondent No. 4 - Yavatmal District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Yavatmal from issuing appointment orders without obtaining orders of this Court. The said writ petition was ordered to be tagged with Writ Petition No. 5062/2006. Thereafter on 21.4.2007 Civil Application No. 2907/2007 was filed by Counsel for respondent No. 4 - Bank seeking permission to issue appointment orders. On the same day Civil Application No. 2909/2007 was also filed by the proposed appointees for joining them as intervenors in the writ petition. On 23.4.2007 this Court adjourned Writ Petitions for final disposal at the admission stage after summer v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-19-2007
Reported in : 2007(5)ALLMR666; 2007(5)BomCR581
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Both these appeals are being decided together inasmuch as there is sufficient semblance of controversial questions involved in both of them. Though, First Appeal No.804/1989 was originally registered as First Appeal No.2578/1983 at Bombay, prior to establishment of the Bench at Aurangabad, and is renumbered as First Appeal here yet, the same is being treated and decided as Second Appeal in view of law laid down by this Court in Maqbul Ahmed Miya Girav v. Hidayatulla Baldi and Anr. : (1999)94BOMLR419 , followed by a Division Bench in Shivprasad Shankarlal Pardeshi since deceased by heirs Shrikant Shivprasad and Ors. v. Leelabai Badrinayaran Kalwar since deceased by her heirs and Ors. : AIR1998Bom131 . For, the appeal arises from judgment and order rendered by learned Assistant District Judge in an application/appeal Under Section 72(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as B.P.T. Act).2. Though, necessary substantial questions of law wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-12-2007
Reported in : 2007(5)ALLMR677; 2007(5)BomCR601; 2007(6)MhLj819
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in Civil Revision Application No. 11 of 1989 dated 14th September, 1990. The Petitioner also seeks declaration to the effect that he is legal heir of deceased Kashiram in view of provisions laid down under Section 5(11)(c)(ii) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1947, for short). 2. Brief facts, necessary for consideration of this writ petition, are that one Mr. Laxmidas Bhagwandas Mehta had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 408 of 1976 against eight persons. The suit was for vacant possession and arrears of rent, permitted increases and damages under the provisions of the Act of 1947. Possession was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent, non-user of the suit property continuously for more than six months period preceding the date of filing of the suit and unlawful subletting of the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-14-2007
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Mum.)173
1. The assessee and Revenue are in cross appeals against the order of learned CIT(A), Central-II, Mumbai dt. 30th March, 2004 passed for the block period starting from 1st April, 1990 and ending on 23rd March, 2001. According to the assessee the assessment in this case is a classic example of fatuous exercise of unbridled power at the hand of executives to tame the media and its supporters, who otherwise have been insulated under the Constitution from interfering in their freedom at the hands of the executives. It was pointed out that assessment in this case is result of sting operation carried out by Tehalka.com of whom the assessee and other sister concerns were having shares at the relevant time, exhibiting irregularities in Defence Arms Deal. Before taking cognizance of the specific grievance and arguments of both the sides in seriatim let us take note of the brief facts.2. Both the learned Revenue authorities have narrated the facts in detail as their orders are running into 264 ...
Tag this Judgment!