Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR2507
J.N. Patel, J.1. Appeal No. 844 of 2007 is filed by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) against Reliance Natural Resources Limited and Appeal No. 1 of 2008 is filed by Reliance Natural Resources Limited (RNRL) against Reliance Industries Limited, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Company Judge on 15th October, 2007 in the matter of Company Application No. 1122 of 2006 filed by Reliance Natural Resources Limited against Reliance Industries Limited. As the two appeals filed by the parties to the application are filed impugning the judgment and order of the learned Company Judge, these two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.Factual Matrix2. The Company Application No. 1122 of 2006 came to be filed in Company Petition No. 731 of 2005 by Reliance Natural Resources Limited seeking appropriate orders and direction of the Company Judge for effective implementation of the scheme as a result of decision of the Company Judge in Company Petition No. 71 of 2005...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1993)ACC627; 1993ACJ946; [1994]80CompCas576(Kar); ILR1993KAR1991; 1992(2)KarLJ559; (1994)ILLJ500Kant
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. The appellant-insurer being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated August 20, 1992, made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bijapur, in Case No. WC. MSR. 46 of 1991 directing the appellant to make good the entire amount of compensation of Rs. 78,648 awarded for the death of Isak in the accident involving the tempo bearing registration No. KA-28-423 belonging to Yaseena Babusaba Nimbargi, respondent No. 6 herein, has come up with this appeal. 2. The appellant has mainly taken the following four grounds to attack the judgment and award appealed against. (1) The Commissioner was not justified in holding that the claimants, respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein, were the legal representatives of the deceased, Isak, though they failed to do so. (2) The deceased was earning only Rs. 300 per month plus batta during his employment. But the Labour Court was in error in holding without considering properly the evidence on record that he was getting Rs. 600 per mont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)357; 69(1997)DLT36
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The builders Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had not acted in accordance with the business ethics and that had resulted in number of persons instituting suits in this Court. The fact that the premises bearing Door No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi was owned by the following persons as co-owners is not disputed. The share of each of the persons is also given below: (i) Shri 0m Prakash 1/6th (ii) Shri Atam Prakash 1/6th (iii) Shri Vijender Singh 1/6th (iv) Shri Rajinder Singh 1/25th ShriJi tender Singh 1/25th Shri Anil Gupta 1/25th Smt. Kushal Wati 1/25th Smt. Pushpa Gupta 1/50th (v) Shri Padam Singh 1/24th Smt. Gayatri Devi 1/24th Shri Madhukar Singh 1/24th Shri Diwakar Singh 1/24th (vi) Smt. Savitri Devi 1/30th Smt. Vimla Devi 1/30th Smt. Memo Devi 1/30th Smt. Vidya Wati 1/30th Smt. Santosh Bala 1/30th (2) In the first instance Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. entered into an agreement with the owners on 24.6.1977 for the purchase of the property. Tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1994]79CompCas868(Kar); ILR1992KAR3329; 1992(4)KarLJ490
K.A. Swami, J.1. This petition is filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the following reliefs : '1. declare that the transfer of 25 equity shares held by Sri B. K. P. Rao (fourth respondent) in favour of his wife, Smt. B. K. Anupama Rao (third respondent), is invalid and illegal and direct that out of the said 25 shares originally held by Sri B. K. P. Rao, 12 shares be transferred to the petitioner; 2. quash the proceedings of the extraordinary general meeting of the members of the company held on November 12, 1987, and annual the resolution passed at the extraordinary general meeting of the company on November 12, 1987, declining to appoint the petitioner as director and direct that the petitioner shall continue as a wholetime director of the company with all such powers as originally conferred upon him and that he is entitled to draw remuneration as such; 3. direct amendment of the articles of association of the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC733; 2005CriLJ918; 2005(1)CTC457; JT2005(1)SC531; (2005)3SCC169; 2005(1)LC417(SC)
..... by a team of doctors and they opined that death was due to bullet injuries.3. preliminary investigation was carried out by pw-182 deputy superintendent of police shri m.g. agarwal. there was agitation by the workers that investigation shall be conducted by the central bureau of investigation and the government of madhya pradesh ..... emphasized that the industrialists had been doing their utmost to break the workers organization and they had even resorted to physical violence on workers. he alleged that police personnel were helping the industrialists and he appealed to the president to bring a check on these acts of violence by industrialists.11. the entries in the ..... the effect that paltan mallah left his motorcycle at his residence and he later came to know that in august, 1993 paltan mallah was caught by the police. the evidence of this witness was seriously challenged in cross-examination. he was extensively cross-examined and a perusal of his cross-examination would show that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(1)ARBLR386(SC); 1993(41)BLJR543; [1995]212ITR592(SC); JT1993(1)SC278; (1993)1MLJ41(SC); 1993(1)SCALE141; (1993)1SCC589; [1993]1SCR58
1. The four appellants and respondents 1 and 2 are brothers. They were carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of Messer's Sivalinga Nadar and Brothers and S.V.S'. Oil Mills, both partnerships being registered under Partnership Act, 1932. Most of the properties were acquired by the firm of Sivalinga Nadar and Brothers. The firm of Messer's S.V.S. Oil Mills merely had leasehold rights in the parcel of land belonging to the first-named firm on which the superstructure of the oil mill stood. Both the partnerships were of fixed durations. Disputes arose between the six brothers in regard to the business carried on in partnership in the aforesaid two names. For the resolution of these disputes the six brothers entered into an arbitration agreement dated 8th October, 1981, which was as under:We are carrying on business in partnership together with other partners under several partnership names. We are also holding shares and Managing the Public Limited Company, namely, The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2279; JT1992(5)SC335; 1992(2)SCALE403; (1993)1SCC22; [1992]Supp1SCR349
ORDERYogeshwar Dayal, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court dated 1st February, 1991. Leila Seth and V.B. Bansal, JJ. agreed with Nag, J. that the condition of deposit of tax amount under Section 170(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is a condition precedent for hearing or determination of the appeal and the District Judge had no discretion to grant stay of the disputed amount or dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount in appeal, with or without conditions, in the office of the Corporation. They also agreed as to the amount which was to be so deposited. The difference of opinion was only restricted to the vires of Section 170(b) of the Act. The majority of learned Judges took the view that Section 170(b) of the Act is not ultra vires the Constitution but Nag. J. took the view that Sub-section (b) of Section 170 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR188; (1992)94BOMLR338
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is partnership firm of which petitioner No. 2 is a partner. The firm carries on business as manufacturers of PVC film, tubings and laminated cotton fabrics in their factory situated at Thane Industrial estate, Thane. Respondent No. 1 is a Municipal Corporation of City of Thane, constituted under Bombay Provincial municipal Corporations Act, 1949. Section 127 of the Act confers powers on the Corporation to impose diverse taxes including levy of octroi duty. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 321 read with the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 105 of the Act, the Government of Maharashtra has framed rules known as the Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules 1968. Schedule I to the rules set out the goods which are liable to octroi on being imported within the octroi limits of the Corporation for sole, use or consumption. Item No. 40 which falls under Class III i.e. the articles used for fuel, lighting, washing and in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1987(1)BomCR195
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. To fulfil construction activities on a plot in Juhu Parle Scheme in Vile Parle area of this metropolis the respondent herein who is owner of the said plot was in need of finance and thus was responsive to the willingness of the intending persons to offer loans with a stipulation that they would get the flats on rental basis after completion of the building. The petitioner herein is one of such needy persons who was on the look out for accommodation. After being posted with the knowledge of this project and having realised that the proposed building was to be located in the close proximity of the present residence the petitioner felt that it would be an ideal accommodation for himself and his brother. With this desire he approached the respondent in February 1980 and after negotiations between the plaintiff and his brother and the respondent an agreement was arrived at between the parties under which the respondent agreed to give on rent the second and the first floor ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 72(1998)DLT733
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.1. The petitioner, named above, has filed the present petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 averring that the Ministry of Posts, Telegraphs & Telephone, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (PTT) awarded the work for outside plants, construction, installation, supply of materials and equipment etc. In Dammam (Saudi Arabia)' to Abdul Aziz Zaidan & Partners (hereinafter referred to as 'BETA'), a Company, incorporated in Saudi Arabia. A contract agreement dated the 14th February, 1985 was signed between PTT and BETA. The petitioner further awarded the sub-contract to the respondent on back to back basis and a sub-contract agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent on 21.3.85. The sub-contract agreement, executed between the parties, contained an arbitration clause to the following effect:'If any dispute or difference arises in connection with the M...
Tag this Judgment!