Court : Mumbai
1. A Division Bench of this court has referred following questions for consideration by a Larger Bench. (I) Whether an employee employed in a private primary school recognised by a body or officer referred to in sub-section (2) of section 39 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 can approach the Tribunal under section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977, if he/she is aggrieved by any action of the management as stipulated in the said provision? (II) In other words, whether the MEPS Act, 1977 applies to employees of a private primary school recognised by a body or officer referred to in sub- section (2) of section 39 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947? 2. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, therefore, constituted this Bench for consideration of the above quoted two questions. 3. The relevant facts are that the Appellant was in the service of Jhulelal Trust School as Asst.teacher. She was working in the primary school. By order dated 26-11-2007 her services were terminated by the managem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 05.08.2013, granting various claims made by the respondents. The petitioner was the original petitioner before the learned arbitrator. The respondents herein were the original claimants. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the present petition are as under: 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is an illiterate lady, who was born and brought up in a village known as Gadh, district Banaskata, State of Gujarat and had never attended any school. She was married to Shankarlal K. Patel , who was also resident of the adjoining village known as Vendancha, District Banskata, State of Gujarat. The petitioner does not know to write or read English, Gujarati, Hindi language or any other language. She also does not even know to subscribe her signature except for affixing her thumb impression. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
G.S. Patel, J. 1. Is a dispute brought before the Company Law Board invoking the provisions of Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 at all referable to a private tribunal, viz., an arbitral panel for resolution? Does a decision of a foreign court on the question of whether a dispute is covered by an arbitration agreement bind the Company Law Board? These are among the questions of law canvassed in this group of appeals. A. STRUCTURE 2. The following table of contents is intended to serve as a guide to the structure of this judgment. A list of the authorities cited or referred is appended for convenience. A. Structure....................................................................................... 13 B. Summary....................................................................................... 15 C. The factual background................................................................20 I. The Super-Max Group.........................................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 19th March, 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. The petitioner was the original claimant whereas the respondent herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. 3. On 24th June, 1995 in response to the tender floated by the respondent, the petitioner submitted its quotation to the respondent offering to provide security services at various offices and go-downs of the respondent. On 31st August, 1995 the respondent decided to award the said contract to the petitioner for providing service of receptionists etc. at various offices and go-downs of the respondent. 4. On 14th November, 1995 the parties executed a formal contract recording various terms and conditions for providing services of receptionis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record of the decision Annexure I-4 to the writ petition and after scrutinising the legality, validity and correctness thereof to quash and set aside the same. The next relief is that of issuance of a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing respondent No.1 to forthwith and/or in such time as this court deems fit and proper to issue in favour of the petitioners a certificate styled as "A" certificate in respect of the film "Udta Punjab", without the same being subjected to any of the cuts/conditions set out in the said decision. 3. This writ petition was placed before us on 8th June, 2016. It was adjourned to 9th Jun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Common Judgment: 1. By these petitions filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act for short), petitioner seeks appointment of Court Receiver in respect of various properties described in the petition, for injunction and for an order and direction against the respondents to secure, in favour of the petitioner, its claim with interest. As the respondents have raised various issues on maintainability of both these petitions, which are common in both the petitions, same were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Some of the facts emerge from the pleadings filed in ARBP No.1321/12 are as under. 2. By orders dated 24th February 2012 and 12th March 2012, this Court accorded sanction to the scheme of arrangement filed by Tata Capital Limited (TCL) and Tata Capital Financial Services Limited (TCFSL) by virtue of which, the securities and/or benefits, rights and obligations under any security arrangements, collateral...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner seeks an order and direction against respondents to deposit monies to the extent of the claims of the petitioner under Share Subscription Agreement and Share Holders Agreement including the investment of approximately US$ 60 million and cost and/or in the alternative to provide adequate and satisfactory security in regard to the claims of the petitioner. Petitioner also claims disclosure of all the assets, moneys, bank deposits and accounts held by the respondents singly or jointly and/or severally including but not limited to the accounts with Corporation Bank by an affidavit. Petitioner seeks injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with their assets including bank accounts with Corporation Bank. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2 (a) Petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius and has its registered offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks appointment of the Court Receiver of the property described in Ex.'U' to the petition and to handover physical and vacant possession thereof to the petitioner with liberty to dispose off the said property, seeks injunction against the respondents from dealing, selling, alienating, disposing and/or creating third party rights in respect of the said property and for other reliefs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. Sometime in the month of September 2012, respondent nos. 1 and 2 approached the petitioner for a loan to the extent of Rs.18 crores for the purpose of infusion of equity/quasi equity unsecured loan in GEI and to takeover the existing loan from HDFC bank. 3. On 27th September, 2012, the petitioner issued a sanctioned letter in favour of the respondents which was duly accepted by the respondents. The petitioner and resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom225; (1934)36BOMLR454
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.,1. In this case the plaintiff in Suit No. 3989 of 1924 has applied for an order for execution under Rule 387 of the Rules of the Bombay High Court (Original Side). That rule and the preceding Rule 386 are in these terms. Rule 386 provides:The Sheriff shall ordinarily execute the process of the High Court in the Island of Bombay, Cross alias Gibbet and Butcher's Islands and the coasts and harbours thereof, respectively, and shall not be compellable to execute process beyond the said limits.2. Then Rule 387 provides:Upon occasions when it shall be necessary to execute process beyond the said ordinary limits, the Sheriff shall grant his special warrant to such person or persona as a Judge shall direct; and in order to prevent any improper use or abuse of the process of the Court, the party issuing the same shall give such security or indemnity for its proper execution as the Judge shall direct.The plaintiff in this suit obtained a money decree for a sum of over on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1969)71BOMLR777
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed in Chambers by Mr. Justice K. K. Desai on October 10, 1966, dismissing a petition filed by the appellants to set aside an award made on May 4, 1966, by Mr. P. P. Khambatta, a senior advocate of this Court.2. The circumstances under which the appeal arises may be briefly stated as follows; The appellants are the Asia Publishing House and P. S. Jayasinghe. Appellant No. 1 is merely the trade name of appellant No. 2 who is the sole proprietor of the business of Asia Publishing House. The respondents John Wiley & Sons, Inc. are a corporation registered in the State of New York in the United States of America. They carry on the business of publishers and they have appeared throughout by a constituted attorney in all these proceedings.3. On October 1, 1956, the appellants and the respondents entered into an agreement exh. A whereby the appellants were appointed publishers of certain books or titles as they have been referred to in...
Tag this Judgment!