Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-06-2012
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
Decided on : Oct-05-2012
1. The above Writ Petitions have been filed invoking the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27th August 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Daman by which order the Appeals being Misc. Civil Appeal Nos.1/2009, 2/2009, 3/2009 and 4/2009 came to be allowed and resultantly the order passed by the Trial Court dated 9th January 2009 came to be set aside, resulting in the Application filed under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being allowed in terms of prayer clause 28(a) thereof, and the Injunction Application of the Petitioners above-named, who are the original Plaintiffs, came to be rejected. 2. The issue that arises in the above Petitions is therefore in two parts viz. Whether the parties are to be referred to arbitration, and Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an anti-suit injunction in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The impugned order is therefore also in two p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-05-2012
1. The above Writ Petitions have been filed invoking the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27th August 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Daman by which order the Appeals being Misc. Civil Appeal Nos.1/2009, 2/2009, 3/2009 and 4/2009 came to be allowed and resultantly the order passed by the Trial Court dated 9th January 2009 came to be set aside, resulting in the Application filed under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being allowed in terms of prayer clause 28(a) thereof, and the Injunction Application of the Petitioners above-named, who are the original Plaintiffs, came to be rejected. 2. The issue that arises in the above Petitions is therefore in two parts viz. Whether the parties are to be referred to arbitration, and Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an anti-suit injunction in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The impugned order is therefore also in two p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-05-2012
(Oral Judgment): Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard Mr. Thorat, learned senior counsel and Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Since all these petitions arise out of various orders passed in a single suit and parties to the suit are being same, I propose to dispose of these writ petitions by passing this common order. 4. Writ Petition Nos. 5822, 5828 and 5829 of 2012 arises out of trial court’s order rejecting the applications for bringing legal heirs of deceased plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, 8 and 9 on record. Writ Petition Nos. 4180 and 4181 of 2012 arises out of an order, whereby the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff Nos. 7 and plaintiff Nos. 10 and 12 are allowed to be brought on record. Writ Petition No. 4179 of 2012 arises out of an order of rejection of an application filed by defendant No.1 for dismissing the entire suit as abated. 5. For convenience, the parties to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-05-2012
(Oral Judgment): Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard Mr. Thorat, learned senior counsel and Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Since all these petitions arise out of various orders passed in a single suit and parties to the suit are being same, I propose to dispose of these writ petitions by passing this common order. 4. Writ Petition Nos. 5822, 5828 and 5829 of 2012 arises out of trial courts order rejecting the applications for bringing legal heirs of deceased plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, 8 and 9 on record. Writ Petition Nos. 4180 and 4181 of 2012 arises out of an order, whereby the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff Nos. 7 and plaintiff Nos. 10 and 12 are allowed to be brought on record. Writ Petition No. 4179 of 2012 arises out of an order of rejection of an application filed by defendant No.1 for dismissing the entire suit as abated. 5. For convenience, the parties to the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-13-2012
(Per S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties and looking to the urgency, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the Union of India, Department of Health and Family Welfare and particularly styled as AYUSH i.e. Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy. 3. By the said order, the Government of India has refused to grant permission for admitting students to the B.A.M.S. (under Graduate) to the P.G. Course (Post Graduate) in Shalakya for the session 201011. For appreciating the challenge to the impugned order, it would be proper to narrate the facts in Writ Petition No. 4965/2011. 4. The first petitioner is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 so also under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 as a public charitable trust. The second petitioner is a Colleg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-26-2012
Honble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member This is a consumer complaint filed by Smt. Pushpa Dinesh Tiwari alleging medical negligence on the part of the Opponent No.1, namely Dr. S. M. Shah and the Opponent No.2, namely The Chairman, HolySpiritHospital. According to the Complainant, her husband, Late Mr. Dinesh Premnarayan Tiwari was admitted in the Opponent No.2 Hospital on 29/12/1997 for liver problem. Opponent No.1, Dr. S. M. Shah was the doctor giving treatment to her husband and the Complainant alleges that on 2/1/1998 the Opponent No.1, Dr. S. M. Shah had given one injection after operating her husband and thereafter her husband started to shout and within three minutes the Complainants husband died because of negligence on the part of the Opponent No.1 Doctor. Alongwith the complaint, the Complainant has produced on the record death certificate of her husband issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The Complainant pleaded that her deceased husband, Mr. D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-16-2012
1.By this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petitioner seeks an order of injunction restraining the respondent in any manner utilizing the amount of Rs.14,59,19,989/- received by the respondent from encashment of the bank guarantee and for a direction to the respondent to secure the petitioner to the extent of the said amount by depositing the same in this court. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection about territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition filed under section 9 of the Act in its affidavit in reply. This court has thus directed both the parties to address this court on the preliminary objection raised by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts on this issue are as under: 2. By Piece Rate Work Contract executed on 16th June, 2010 at Chennai by and between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner was awarded the project of construction of automotive test tracks at GARC, Chen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-16-2012
1. By this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petitioner seeks an order of injunction restraining the respondent in any manner utilizing the amount of Rs.14,59,19,989/- received by the respondent from encashment of the bank guarantee and for a direction to the respondent to secure the petitioner to the extent of the said amount by depositing the same in this court. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection about territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition filed under section 9 of the Act in its affidavit in reply. This court has thus directed both the parties to address this court on the preliminary objection raised by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts on this issue are as under: 2. By Piece Rate Work Contract executed on 16th June, 2010 at Chennai by and between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner was awarded the project of construction of automotive test tracks at GARC, Che...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-26-2012
Honble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member This is a consumer complaint filed by Smt. Sabtri @ Savitri Agarwal, a resident of ChhattisgarhState. Complaint has been filed against the Opponent No.1, TataMemorialHospital and the Opponent No.2, Dr. Sudeep Gupta also working with the Opponent No.1, TataMemorialHospital. According to the Complainant, she is a housewife aged 59 years old. The Opponent No.1, TataMemorialHospital is a leading cancer treatment institute in India and is under the control of Atomic Energy Administration of Government of India. The Opponent No.2, Dr. Sudeep Gupta is a leading doctor of gastro-intestinal ailments and he is an Associate Professor in the Department of Oncology with the Opponent No.1, Hospital. [2] According to the Complainant, on 14/3/2007 at her residence she suffered blood vomiting and she was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital known as SiddharthHospital where Dr. G. S. Agarwal gave her preliminary treatment and advised her to underg...
Tag this Judgment!