Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(1)BomCR405; [2005]125CompCas615(Bom); (2003)4CompLJ89(Bom); [2004]50SCL77(Bom)
D.G. Karnik, J. 1. The petitioner is a company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and deemed to be an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. Three other companies namely Recon Health Care Limited, Zydus Pathline Limited and Zoom Properties Limited along with the petitioner are proposed to be amalgamated and merged with Cadila Health Care Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferee company') under a common scheme of arrangement (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme'). On a petition filed by Zydus Pathline Limited - one of the transferor companies having registered office in the State of Gujarat, bearing Company Petition No. 28 of 2003, the High Court of Gujarat has approved and sanctioned the scheme. Similarly in Company Petition No. 61 of 2003 filed by Cadila Health Care Ltd. the transferee company having its registered office in the State of Gujarat, the High Court of Gujarat has approved and sanctioned the scheme. The r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(1)BomCR899; [2008(116)FLR457]; 2007(6)MhLj185
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Both these Petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the parties to both these Petitions have challenged the common order which is passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 43 of 2002.2. The Industrial Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under Section 10(1), (2)(a) to (d) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'CLRA Act') within a reasonable period. The Tribunal held that the contract which was entered into between the Contractor and the Company was not sham and bogus but was a genuine contract. However, on the basis of other material on record, it directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under the aforesaid provisions of the CLRA Act.3. Being aggrieved by the directions given by the Industrial Court to the appropriate Government to take action under the provisions of Section 10(l)(2)(a) to (d) of the CLRA Act, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1] This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:- "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the arbitration Award dated 8 July 2009 read with 15 March 2010 enforceable as decree of this Hon'ble Court."2] It is submitted by the petitioners that they are a company incorporated in England and carrying on business at the address set out in the cause title. They are inter alia ship owners, ship operators and charterers. Respondent before this Court is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at the address mentioned hereinabove. It carries on business as exporters of Bauxite and other minerals. 3] The petitioner seeks enforcement of a foreign Arbitration Award dated 8th July 2009 and a further award dated 15th March 2010 under which the petitioners have been awarded sums more particularly set out in para 2 of the petition. A copy of the Award in relation to the main dispute and also a copy of the Award in relation to costs is annexed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The applicant / decree holder / judgment creditor (plaintiff) has obtained a judgment in the above suit from the Royal Courts of Justice, London, UK against the respondent / judgment debtor (defendant) herein on 1st February, 2010, which the plaintiff desires to execute. Consequently the above execution application is filed for execution of the above judgment. In the above execution the plaintiff has taken out the above Chamber Summons for depositing of decretal amount and failing which for disclosing the particulars of the assets and properties of the defendant, for issue of notices, precepts and warrant as may be required under Order 21 of the CPC, for an injunction against defendant from transferring, alienating and creating any third party rights of any of its properties, appointment of receiver, for detaining the defendant in civil prison upon non compliance of order of disclosure and other incidental reliefs and costs of the application. 2. The certified copy of the above judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR792; [1965]57ITR428(Bom)
Y.S. Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act and is in respect of the five reference applications made to the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54, the accounting years being the respective previous calendar years. After consolidation of these five reference applications relating to the aforesaid assessment years, two questions of law have been referred to this court. The first question is common for all the five years and the second question is common only for three assessment years, viz. 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. Facts giving rise to this reference in brief are : The assessee-company, Messrs. Ciba Pharma Private Limited, Bombay hereinafter referred to as the 'Ciba Pharma', is a cent per cent. Indian subsidiary of Ciba Limited, Basle (Switzerland), hereinafter referred to as 'the Ciba Basle.' Ciba Basle deals in drugs, medicines, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and biological pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1990Bom299
ORDER1. These are Matrimonial Petitions and Suits which involve a common question of law, namely, whether these matters stand transferred or should be transferred to the Family Court, Bombay established the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. LXVI of 1984). The Family Court was established in the City of Bombay as from 7th October 1989, and the Act has been brought into force for the purpose of the said court as from that day. Since the question involved is likely to arise in several other Matrimonial Suits or Petitions pending in this court, I thought it convenient to request the counsel appearing in all these matters to address me, in the first instance, on this question, withoutgoing into the merits of each case which willbe done separately.The question that arises for consideration may be formulated thus:--Whether the matrimonial jurisdiction ex-ercisable by this Court (High Court) on its Original Side is not affected by S. 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and whether consequently th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1948Bom272; (1948)50BOMLR49
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal raises a very important question as to the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.2. The appellants are a joint stock company and they filed the suit from which this appeal arises against the defendants who were the plaintiffs' managing agents for a very long time, their agency having been terminated on November 21, 1940. In the suit various reliefs were claimed against the defendants. The one with which we are concerned related to certain lands at Jalgaon which stood in the name of the defendants and which the plaintiffs claimed to be of their ownership, having; been acquired according to them by the defendants as plaintiffs' agents and with the funds belonging to the plaintiffs. In respect of these lands the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they belonged to and were the property of the plaintiffs and that the defendants had no beneficial interest therein and also they asked for an order against the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom275; (1961)63BOMLR272
ORDER1. The Petitioner Mrs. Julieta Coutinho has filed this Petition in this Court's general and inherent jurisdiction for an order that the petitioner may be appointed guardian of the right, title and interest of the two respondents, who are minors, in the property at Eksar and that the Petitioner as such guardian may be authorised to sell the said immovable property on the terms and conditions of an agreement of sale dated 31st January 1960 and for certain other consequential reliefs. One Ciriaco Bernardo Coutinho died on 3rd May 1951 leaving the Petitioner who is his widow and four children, two of whom are now majors and the other two, being the two respondents in this petition, who are minors. The parties are Indian Christians and are governed by the Indian Succession Act. The said deceased has left no will. He left a small immovable property situated at Eksar which is within the Greater Bombay. That property consists of an open plot of land admeasuring 1964 square yards and is th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1974)76BOMLR375
Bhole, J.1. An important point of law under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Societies Act') arises in this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order passed by my learned brother Vaidya J. in the appeal by the judgment-debtor against the order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dismissing the Chamber Summons taken out by him. An ex parts decree for a sum of Rs. 20,000 and odd was passed in the suit by the decree-holder, on March 31, 1970. The decree-holder then took out a warrant of attachment of Flat No. 9 in the building belonging to Paresh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., a Society registered under the Societies Act. The flat was attached on August 8, 1970 after serving the warrant on the judgment-debtor in the jail at Rajkot. He appears to have been convicted in a criminal case and was, therefore, suffering imprisonment at Rajkot. The decree-holder thereafter applied for the sale of the said flat and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR896; 2004(5)BomCR50; 2004(4)CTC241; 2004(3)MhLj706
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice by order dated January 15, 2004 passed in the present Letters Patent Appeal observed that the decision of the Division Bench of this court (Goa Bench) in Shri Chandreshwar Bhuthanath Devasthan of Paroda v. Subiraj Prabhakar Naik and Ors., 2003 Vol 105(2), Bombay Law Reporter, 915 deserves reconsideration.2. The present Letters Patent Appeal presented on January 6, 2004 is directed against the order dated December 18, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge summarily dismissing the First Appeal arising out of the suit for possession filed on September 9, 1992.3. In Chandreshwar Bhuthanath the Division Bench of this court (Goa Bench) held that Section 100A as substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 shall have retrospective effect and summarised its reasoning thus:'46. We are summarising our reasonings as follows for our conclusion that the aforesaid C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002, perta...
Tag this Judgment!