Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1981)83BOMLR75; 1981MhLJ93
Madon, J.1. The circumstances which led to this Special Bench being constituted are that on September 10, 1980 a Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Madon and Shah JJ., while hearing an Appeal, namely, Appeal No. 308 of 1979 Filmistan Private Limited v, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, against the judgment and order of Pendse J., sitting singly on the Original Side, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, entertained a doubt as to the competency of the said Appeal. Accordingly, they directed the papers in the said Appeal to be placed before the Chief Justice for him to constitute a larger Bench, if he so thought fit, for the determination of the question whether the said Appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this High Court. Six days later, that is, on September 16, 1980, while another Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Madon and Kania JJ., were taking admissions in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)89BOMLR356; 1987MhLJ503
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 13, 1986 passed by the learned Single Judge (Shah, J.) in suit No. 1844 of 1984 filed on the Original Side of this Court. The learned Single Judge after recording his findings on all the three preliminary issues held that the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of statutory under notice Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Co-operative Societies Act'). But, however in regard to his finding relating to the jurisdiction (issue No. 3) the learned single Judge felt that his view in that behalf is in conflict with view taken by another single Judge in Pravin R. Gaglani v. Beharilal Beniprasad : AIR1978Bom255 . He therefore referred the said issue for decision to a larger Bench and directed the office to place and papers of this suit before the learned Chief Justice for appropriate orders under Rule 28 of the High Court Origin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2002]109CompCas18(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The notices of motion in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 seek to challenge the legality and validity of substantial acquisitions of shares by defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in defendant No. 12-company allegedly in violation of the provisions of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994, and pray for the annulment thereof, particularly in the context of the breaches of regulations 9 and 10 which require a public announcement of the intention to acquire substantial shares in certain circumstances. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 on the other hand, dispute the right of third parties like the plaintiffs to challenge such acquisitions, the rights of plaintiffs claimed to be based in common law and/or statute and as to whether the voting rights flowing from such shares can be injuncted by filing a suit in the context of the relevant provisions of the Companies Act. Consequently, the questions pertaining to balance of convenience and appropriate orders to be passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)64TTJ(Mumbai)357
ORDERBY THE BENCH:This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1993-94 is directed against the order of the CIT(A) upholding certain additions and disallowances.2. The. assessee is one of the biggest Indian companies in which public is interested' It is highly diversified and largest 'core industries' in India. It produces viscose, staple fibre, rayon, pulp, caustic soda, cement, software, sponge iron, textiles, heavy engineering machinery and chemicals. It employs over 25,000 persons and its plants are located at about 10 places in India.3. In the memo of appeal, several grounds are raised, but during the course of hearing, the first objection taken by the learned counsel for the assessee related to disallowance of part of deduction claimed under s. 80M of the IT Act, 1961 out of dividend income. The assessee during the relevant period received dividends from Indian companies and returns from UTI amounting to Rs. 28,64 crores and distributed dividend approximately Rs. 25. 11 crores. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Defendant no.1 has filed these two Notice of Motions for various reliefs. Notice no. 765 of 2009 is filed inter alia praying for recalling and setting aside the orders dated 11th September, 2007 and 3rd October 2005 passed by this court disposing of Suit No. 4816 of 2000 and further seeks that the orders dated 2nd December 2000, 18th June, 2002 and 2nd February, 2001 be set aside and/or recalled. Defendants also seek that court receiver shall take possession of the properties pursuant to the order dated 2nd December, 2000 and shall restore the position as on that date by removing the persons that may be found in the premises. 2. Notice of Motion No. 591 of 2009 is filed by the original 1st defendant in Suit No. 2687 of 2001 inter alia praying for recalling and setting aside the order dated 6th May 2008, 9th January 2004 and 5th April, 2004. Defendant no.1 has also prayed that the court receiver appointed by this court on 9th January, 2004 be directed to take possession of the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Defendant no.1 has filed these two Notice of Motions for various reliefs. Notice no. 765 of 2009 is filed inter alia praying for recalling and setting aside the orders dated 11th September, 2007 and 3rd October 2005 passed by this court disposing of Suit No. 4816 of 2000 and further seeks that the orders dated 2nd December 2000, 18th June, 2002 and 2nd February, 2001 be set aside and/or recalled. Defendants also seek that court receiver shall take possession of the properties pursuant to the order dated 2nd December, 2000 and shall restore the position as on that date by removing the persons that may be found in the premises. 2. Notice of Motion No. 591 of 2009 is filed by the original 1st defendant in Suit No. 2687 of 2001 inter alia praying for recalling and setting aside the order dated 6th May 2008, 9th January 2004 and 5th April, 2004. Defendant no.1 has also prayed that the court receiver appointed by this court on 9th January, 2004 be directed to take possession of the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (A.K. Menon, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks an appropriate Writ for quashing and setting aside decisions of the Purchase Committee of Respondents No.1 and 2 dated 12th June 2013 and 24th September 2013 as also impugned communications dated 27th June 2013 and 31st December 2013 from the said Respondents. The Petitioner also seeks a declaration that it is eligible to bid for and supply of Drug Eluting Stents (œStents?) approved by the Drugs Controller General of India (œDCGI?) to beneficiaries of Rajiv Gandhi Aryogya Yojana and other consequential reliefs. 3. The Petitioner company carries on business inter alia as manufacturers and importers of medical devices including coronary Stents which are used for relieving cardiac ailments. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra and Respondents No.2 is the Joint Director of Health Services of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 is Union of India....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Mum.)516
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Central-VII, Mumbai, dt. 30th July, 2004 for the asst. yr.2001-02. "(I) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the entire amount of Rs. 23 crores from M/s EEL was taxable as appellant's income for asst. yr. 2001-02, without appreciating that-- (a) the appellant was bound under agreements dt. 10th Jan., 1995 and 11th Feb., 1995 between him and M/s ABCL to handover to M/s ABCL entire income from 'engagements' as defined in the said agreements except those under Clause 1.7 thereof and M/s ABCL could enforce the terms thereunder as per Clauses 11 and 20 thereof. Further, he was also legally bound by his assurance given in information memorandum of M/s ABCL issued in 1996 for placing shares thereof at a premium of Rs. 70 per share. (b) the said agreements were genuine and bona fide as found by Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order No. 4453/Mum/2000 for asst. yr. 1996-97...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This appeal is preferred on behalf of the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds. The assessee has filed the cross objection assailing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on certain grounds. Since the appeal and the cross objection were heard together, these are being disposed of by this consolidated order. We, however, prefer to adjudicate them one by one.2. Through this appeal, the revenue has assailed the order of Commissioner (Appeals) on following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in: (1) directing the assessing officer to give deduction of Rs. 2,83,33,333 under Section 35AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the assessee itself is basically a trader and does not have any manufacturing facility/activity and also without appreciating the fact that the liabilities of excise, Modvat, sales tax etc., in respect of the production, cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1992Bom126; 1991(3)BomCR541
ORDER1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of Flat No. 31-A situate on the 3rd floor of the building known as Darshan Apartments, Mount Pleasant Road, Bombay, and of Garage No. 35 situate thereat and of 125 shares of defendant No. 3 Society represented by Share Certificates Nos. 28, 86 and 122 and for a negative declaration that defendant No. 1 and/or defendant No. 2have no right, title or interest in the said flat or the said garage or the said shares and for a direction against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to do all things necessary to complete the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the said flat, the said garage and the said shares.2. By this notice of motion, the plaintiffshave sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from proceeding with R.A.F. & R. Suit No. 918/4826 of 1976 filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the plaintiffs till the hearing and final disposal of this suit.3. This noti...
Tag this Judgment!