Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: By this petition (667 of 2011) filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners seek to challenge the impugned award dated 13th July, 2011 passed by the learned arbitrator holding that the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondents stood terminated by repudiation on the part of the petitioners and on acceptance thereof by the respondents and directing the respondents to refund of Rs.73,00,51,960/- to the petitioners within a period of 90 days of the said award. The learned arbitrator also awarded arbitration cost in favour of the respondents herein in the sum of Rs.33,00,000/-. The petitioners to this petition were respondents in the arbitration proceedings. By petition (629 of 2011) the petitioners seek interim measures. The respondents herein were claimants in the arbitration proceedings. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are set out hereinunder:- 2. By a Deed of Transfer of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the Judgment dated 14/11/2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 282 of 1999 has been challenged. 2. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, in short, are as follows : Eviction proceedings were initiated against the deceased appellant no.1 and his wife, the appellant no. 2(defendants) by respondents no. 2 to 7 and two others (plaintiffs), by way of Regular Civil Suit No. 267/1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji. The suit house is the house bearing Village Panchayat No. 525 situated at Taleigao. The Plaintiffs contended that the suit house was built up by one Radhabhai Khandeparkar alias Oidem, in the property of the plaintiffs with their permission and she was residing there alone as licensee and died in 1975 without leaving any heirs and upon her death, the suit house remained closed. The plaintiffs further claimed that on or about 28/07/1975, the defendan...
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
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal petition filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act), the appellant seeks to challenge an order and judgment dated 12th August, 2004 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Ratnagiri rejecting Civil Misc. Arbitration Application (7 of 2001) filed by the appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 challenging the impugned award dated 15th December, 2000 allowing various claims made by the respondent. (The appellant is hereinafter referred to as the owner and respondent is referred to as Contractor). 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under: (a) On 4th June, 1991, the owner invited tenders for the work of construction of major bridge on River Vashshiti at Chiplun. On 12th July, 1991, the contractor submitted a tender. The owner accepted the tender submitted by the contractor on 29th August, 1991 at the cost of Rs.1,59,94,060 with a stipulated dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `Arbitration Act, 1996), the petitioner seeks to challenge an award dated 15th February, 2011 made by the Arbitral Tribunal dismissing the dispute filed by the petitioner under section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. Since 1986, petitioner was member of the respondent bank. For the period between 25th November, 2000 and March 2008, the petitioner was elected as the Chairman of respondent. In February 2008, once again the petitioner was elected as the director by mandate of the members of the respondent. 3. In the meeting of the respondent bank, on a querry raised by one of the members, it was decided to appoint M/s.Choksi and Choksi, Chartered Accountants to conduct an enquiry into the alleged irregularities of some accounts. Pursuant to the said resolution, M/s. Choksi and Choksi,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) This Appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 4 October 2012 by which a motion seeking a direction under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 striking off the defence of the Appellant to a Petition for enforcing a foreign award was allowed. The learned Single Judge has directed that the defence filed by the Appellant to the Petition instituted by the Respondent under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be struck off. 2. The facts before the Court lie in a narrow compass. On 25 October 2007 a contract of affreightment was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent for shipment of a certain consignment of Bauxite from the west coast of India to China. One of the ports of dispatch was Okha which, the Court is informed, falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court of Jamkhambhalia in the District of Jamnagar. The Respondent lodged a claim against the Appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral judgment: 1. By consent of parties as the facts and the issues involved in all the above three matters are identical were heard together finally and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. By these petitions filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act, 1996) the petitioner seeks to challenge orders dated 9th May, 2011 allowing application filed by the respondents under section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and directing the petitioner to withdraw the proceedings filed by the petitioner under section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short Multi State Act) and for referring them to the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bombay. 3. I shall deal with the facts in Arbitration Petition No. 935 of 2012. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these petitions are setout as under:- 4. The petitioner was originally registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1 The appellants are the accused in MCOC Special Case No.21 of 2006, pending before the Judge of the Special Court constituted under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'MCOC Act' for the sake of brevity). They are aggrieved by the order dated 1 August 2012 passed by the learned Trial Judge refusing to permit them to examine four witnesses in their defence. They have, therefore, approached this Court by filing an appeal as contemplated under section 12 of the MCOC Act, praying that the said order refusing to issue summonses to the said witnesses, be set aside and the appellants be allowed to lead defence evidence, as proposed by them. 2 The appellants are also aggrieved by two other orders passed by the learned Judge of the Special Court, and have filed separate appeals challenging the said orders also (Appeal No.973 of 2012 and 992 of 2012). Though the appeals were heard together, the questions needing determination in the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1.By consent of parties, all the aforesaid company appeals were heard together on the preliminary issue raised by the respondents about the maintainability of appeal and are being disposed off by a common order. FACTS IN COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO. 47 OF 2012: 2. By this appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, the appellant challenges the order dated 12th October, 2012 passed by the Company Law Board (For short CLB) by which the CLB allowed the company application filed by respondent No. 2 under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (For short the Arbitration Act, 1996) and referred the parties to arbitration as contemplated under Article 58 of the Articles of Association and clause 20.4 contained in the agreement and as per the provisions contained in the Arbitration Act, 1996. Respondent no. 2 had filed application under section 8 in Company Petition No. 57 of 2012 filed by the appellant under section 397 and 398 read with section 402 of Comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.307/2009. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad convicted and imposed sentences on the appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 on different counts as under: i) The appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for six months each for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ii) The appellant/ accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for one month for commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. iii) The appellant/ accused No.2 in Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!