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
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 Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. On 16.7.2015, I had passed the following order: 1. Shri Shahane, learned Advocate submits that he was appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 34 in Writ Petition No. 2965 of 1998 and for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2403 of 1998. Shri K.B.Borde, learned Advocate now appears for the said respondents / petitioners respectively.. He, therefore, prays for discharge. Shri Borde confirms his appearance. As such, the appearance of Shri Shahane is discharged. 2. Both these petitions have been admitted. 3. Shri Patil, learned Advocate along with Shri Navandar has commenced his submissions. During the course of his submissions, he has indicated that the dispute as regards distribution of monetary dues is concerned, the Apex Court by its order dated 21.3.1988 and subsequent orders delivered in Writ Petition No.575 of 1986 with Special Leave Petition No.4712 of 1986 has observed and directed as under:- In the writ petition there were two prayers: One was for a direction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal, the State is challenging the acquittal of the respondents from an offence punishable under Section 18(a)(I) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act, for short). 2. Brief facts are that PW1 Mrs. Jyoti Sardessai, who is the complainant in this case, and a Drugs Inspector, had visited the premises of M/s. Matrix Pharma, Ponda, Goa on 14/01/2004 and collected the sample of a medicine 'Caryrox', Batch No.C202, which is a patent and proprietary medicine. It is a suspension of a generic drug 'Roxithromycin'. The drug was manufactured by the respondent no.3 of which the respondent no.4 is a proprietor under loan license from the respondent no.1, of which the respondent no.2 is a proprietor. The manufacturing date of medicine is July, 2002 and the expiry was shown as June 2004. According to the prosecution, the sample was collected as per the established procedure. When the sample was sent for analysis by the State Laboratory in Go...
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
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 26th February 2007 by which the learned arbitrator has rejected 10 claims out of 11 claims made by the petitioner and allowed 2 counter claims out of 4 counter claims made by the respondent no.1. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner herein was the original claimant whereas the respondent no.1 was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. 3. On 3rd October 2002, the petitioner was awarded the contract of Earth work for Electrical Sub-station building, construction of sub station building, Earth work in Karjat yard between Ch.27120M to 28000M and construction of approach road at Karjat vide letter of acceptance dated 3rd October 2002. The total cost of the work was Rs.62,15,000/-. The original stipulated date of completion was 3rd July 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. This Appeal takes exception to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10 October 2013 under which the learned Single Judge revoked the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to file a section 9 Petition under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act). 2. The leave was initially granted on the basis that a material part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore, on granting leave under Clause XII, this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the section 9 Petition. In a nutshell, vide the impugned order, the learned Judge upheld the contention of the Respondent that the dispute in the proposed arbitration between the parties was in respect of the land situated at Indore which was owned by the Respondent and which was to be developed by the Appellant. In other words, the learned Judge held that the dispute between the parties in the proposed arbitration would amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbtiral award dated 2nd March, 2010 thereby allowing some of the claims made by the respondent no.1 and rejecting the counter 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 respondent to the claim made by the respondents and was claimant to the counter claim made by the petitioner. The respondents were the original claimants to the statement of claim and were respondents to the counter claim before the learned arbitrator. 3. The petitioner was nominated as the implementing agency for the Oil Palm Demonstration project of the Government of India. The petitioner had taken on lease several pieces of agricultural land from farmers in District Sindhudurg aggregating to about 1035 hectares of land for the purpose of planting nursery...
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
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. These two references under the then Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the BST Act) seek an answer and opinion of this Court on the following questions of law, which have been formulated by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. 2. In Sales Tax Reference No. 16 of 2003, on 12th September, 2003, the Tribunal has referred the questions set out herein below: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the amount of Rs.8,34,781/- as per hire purchase agreement dated 7.2.1996 hire financed in favour of Shri. Ajit Singh Bhimrao was liable to tax under Section 8 of the B.S.T. Act, 1959? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that an amount of Rs.3,27,601/- out of Rs.8,34,781/- which were option money, insurance charges for 3 years and hire premium recovered from Shri. Ajit Singh Bhimrao formed part of the Sale Pri...
Tag this Judgment!