Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(3)ALLMR46; 2000(3)BomCR330; (2000)2BOMLR567; 2000(3)MhLj121
orders.h. kapadia, j.1. on 16th july, 1999, the central government by notification established the debt recovery tribunal under section 3 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993. consequent upon the said notification, all suits/proceedings pending before this court involving claims of rs. 10 lakhs and above stood transferred to the debts recovery tribunal (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'd.r.t.').2. after 16th july, 1999 in several proceedings before the court receiver parties have challenged the right of the court receiver to manage the properties on the ground that in view of d.r.t. act, 1993, the court receiver had no authority to act in the matter. hence, the court receiver has moved this court. pursuant to notice, the above matters have come up for hearing.3. in the circumstances, the court receiver has moved this court for adjudication of various points, which arise for determination consequent upon the above notification.4. the following points arise for determination:(i) whether this court has jurisdiction to issue directions to court receiver in suits in which the court receiver stands appointed prior to 16th july 1999 ?(ii) if not, whether this court is empowered to give directions to its court receiver regarding the properties which are in the custody of the said receiver till such time as the d.r.t./central government sets-up alternate office machinery with a proper infrastructure ?5. before coming to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(6)BomCR275; 2004(3)MhLj1090
anoop v. mohta, j.1. this chamber summons relates to the time for making payment of the balance of the purchase price, in view of the order dated 23rd february, 2004, passed by this court, whereby applicant's offer was accepted and sale of the flat bearing no. b/21 at sea-gull apartment, 4a, bhulabhai desai road, mumbai, was confirmed for an amount of rs. 55,00,000/-, being the highest offer received on that date. the sale was conducted under the rules and conditions of the bombay high court (original side) rules (for short 'high court rules.')2. the applicant, in pursuance to the said order has already deposited rs. 13,75,000/- being 25% of the aforesaid purchase price with the court receiver on 23rd february, 2004, and the sale of the said flat was confirmed on usual terms and conditions, which provided for payment of balance purchase price within four weeks from the date of confirmation of the sale by this court. the case of the applicant herein is that he was expecting a large payment from one of his client by friday, 20th march, 2004. however, the said commitment was not fulfilled by the said client. the applicant, therefore, was short of funds and was constrained to approach this court for a short extension of time for a period of two weeks to deposit the balance purchase price in respect of the said flat.3. on 22nd march, 2004, by way of a principe, accordingly, application was moved at 2.45 p.m. on the same day, at 4.45 p.m., the counsel appearing for the plaintiff .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2007]135CompCas203(Bom)
s.c. dharmadhikari, j.1. by this petition filed under sections 391 and 394 of the companies act, 1956, the petitioners prays that the arrangement embodied in the scheme (annexure j) be sanctioned by this court with or without modification and declare the same as binding on the petitioner and its secured and unsecured creditors.2. the petition is presented to this court on january 9, 2006. the petitioner has pointed out that it was incorporated on february 13, 1973, in the name and style of ashoka organics industries ltd. the registered office of the petitioner-company is situate at 14, sun mill compound, sun industrial co-operative society ltd., lower parel, mumbai-400013. the authorised share capital of the company is rs. 15,00,00,000 divided into 1,50,000 equity shares of rs. 10 each. the issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the company is rs. 12,08,56,250 divided into 1,20,85,625 equity shares of rs. 10 each fully paid up.3. the main object of the company are set out in paras. 5 and 6 of the petition. the petitioner-company commenced its business in the year 1973, and has been carrying on the same since then. the petitioner-company has acquired several liabilities over the years resulting in the assets of the petitioner-company falling short of its liability requiring the petitioner-company to be referred to the bifr.4. the petitioner-company had also by its letter dated february 4, 2002, lodged a reference before the bifr. the bifr had also by its letter dated may .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR565; 2008(6)BomCR59; (2008)110BOMLR2370
swatanter kumar, c.j.1. a simple but question of some legal importance falls for consideration in the present appeal. what is the scope of judicial discretion of a court trying a suit on the original side of this court with reference to rules 89 to 91 and 265 of the high court, original side, rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') read with order viii rules 1 and 10 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 it is a settled canon of civil jurisprudence that wide discretion is vested with the court and with the aid of its inherent powers court can pass orders which may be necessary to achieve the ends of justice. the rules of procedural law are not to scuttle the rights of the parties at the threshold of the proceedings unless an indefeasible right is vested in the other side and it will cause great injustice or prejudice to that party. exercise of such judicial discretion has to be in consonance with the settled principles of law, amongst which, it is also a settled principle of law that power of the appellate court to examine the legality, correctness or otherwise of a discretionary order is a limited one and unless such order was perverse, contrary to the statute or where the discretion had been exercised in patent violation to the settled percepts of law, appellate court may not interfere.2. the argument raised by the appellants in the present appeal is that the learned single judge has passed the impugned order in exercise of discretionary power contrary to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(3)BomCR707
h.l. gokhale, j.1. this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india is concerning the appointment to the post of principal judge, city civil & sessions court, mumbai. the petition seeks to challenge the high court's order appointing a district judge to that post by transfer. it is stated to be in breach of a provision of the bombay city civil court act, 1948. it is contended amongst others that under the said statute the power to make this appointment is reserved only in the state government and not available to the high court. it is also contended that a district judge cannot be appointed directly as the principal judge through the mode of transfer. the order is defended under the bombay judicial service recruitment rules, 1956 framed under article 234 read with articles 309 of the constitution. it is not in dispute that this is a selection post. thus the question is whether the district judges can come within the zone of consideration for this post through the mode of transfer made by the high court as sought to be done under the above rules.2. the petitioners herein are two advocates practising in the bombay city civil & sessions court. they claim to have filed this petition on behalf of all the other advocates practising in that court and leave under order 1, rule 8 of c.p.c. is sought in para 39 of the petition. the petition seeks to challenge the notification issued by respondent no. 1--- bombay high court dated 20th august, 2001 appointing respondent no. 2, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(1)BomCR48
orderf.i. rebello, j.1. leave under rule 127 of the high court (original side) rules granted to the defendant no. 1 to take out chamber summons in terms of the draft chamber summons handed in.2. by the present chamber summons, judgment debtor defendant no. 1 have prayed for a declaration that the consent decree dated 7th july, 1997 as modified on 26th november, 1997 between the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 11 is not executable in view of the fact that the same has not been registered and stamped as required by law. interim relief has been prayed for pending the hearing and final disposal of the chamber summons.3. on behalf of the judgment debtors, their learned counsel contends that the consent decree purports to create interest in property and as such required registration under section 17 of the indian registration act, 1908. it is further contended that by virtue of section 49 of the indian registration act, a document which is not registered cannot be considered being void ab initio and consequently the decree cannot be executed. it is further contended that the decree was drawn up on 30th september, 1998 and the decree could have been registered up to 30th january, 1999 and with the permission of the authorities under the act up to 30th may, 1999. on behalf of the decree holder a preliminary objection was raised pertaining to estoppel and/or in the alternative constructive resjudicata. it has been pointed out that the first proceedings for execution in respect of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(4)ALLMR627; 2001(1)BomCR571; (2001)3BOMLR279
orderd. g. deshpande, j.1. the suit is filed by both wife - plaintiff no. 1 and husband - plaintiff no. 2 for divorce by mutual consent under section 32b of the parsi marriage and divorce act, 1936. the matter was on board today under caption 'mutual consent matters'. both the plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no. 2 are residing in united states and the plaint which was filed in this court on 13th july, 2000 has been signed by both the plaintiffs and it was presented by the constituted attorney, who is an advocate. the original power of attorney duly signed and attested by both the parties is filed on record. it is notarised by notary public in u.s.a.2. counsel representing both tlie plaintiffs also tendered today affidavit of the wife-plaintiff no. 1 and the husband-plaintiff no. 2. both these affidavits are also notarised before the notary public in u.s.a., and each of the affidavit is accompanied by letter written by the plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no. 2 explaining difficulty in coming to india for the purpose of giving evidence. both of them have however stated in the affidavits why they have filed this suit for divorce by mutual consent, and affidavits being accepted and taken on record in lieu of their oral evidence. both of them have stated that they have already obtained divorce by the family judge of the probate and family court department and judgment of decree nisi was granted as on 3.4.2000 and it became decree absolute on 21.7.2000.3. counsel for the plaintiffs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1982Bom67
order1. mr. patel refers to r. 227 of the high court original side rules 1980 and to r. 290 (4) of the rules of 1957 and contends that i must place the suit on board for dismissal and must dismiss the same. he says that under the old rule the court had discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss the suit depending on whether sufficient cause is shown or not, while under the present rule there is no such discretion vested in court. in my view the position is actually to the contrary.2. under the said rules, the court.s discretion was limited to sufficient cause being shown and if it was not shown the suite has to be dismissed. as against this the present rule only provides that the suit shall be placed on board for dismissal but it does not provide as to what is to happen thereafter. in my view the court will, therefore, have a wider discretion now than before and the court is not bound to dismiss the suit.3, application is rejected, particularly, in view of the fact that the summons for judgment is now taken out, even before the matter could be notified for being placed on board for dismissal.4. in view of the fact that the summons for judgment has been taken our after such delay, unconditional leave to defend. suit transferred to the list of long causes. written statement within 8 weeks, usual orders for discovery and inspection. 5. ordered accordingly.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
judgment.: 1. the matter was on board on 29 july 2011. none appeared for the defendants. as the summary suit is of 2004, the plaintiff's counsel ms.shreevardhini parchure submitted the case and argued accordingly. the matter was closed for judgment. 2 it was listed for pronouncement on 11 august 2011 in chamber. the learned counsel mr. v . shastri for defendants 1 and 2 along with .p defendant no.2-mr.nasrudin k. jamagia, appeared and requested for time to settle the matter and not to pronounce the judgment. it was accordingly adjourned to 18 august 2011. as the parties were exploring the possibility of settlement, it was again adjourned. the parties could not settle the matter. the matter is listed today under the caption "for pronouncement of judgment". 3 the learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the plaintiff has filed a rejoinder in which a specific case now made out with regard to the disposal of tonners, based on the events, after the filing of the basic affidavit. the second submission was with regard to the delay in taking out this summons for judgment. 4 therefore, after re-hearing and re-considering the rival submissions made by the parties read with the affidavit and material already on record, i am inclined to pass the following judgment/order. 5 the plaintiff, who is dealing in the business of manufacture and sale of inorganic chemicals, salt, fertilizer and other products, has filed a summary suit on 16 february 2004 to recover the duly .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR421; 2003(5)BomCR523; 2003(4)MhLj915; 2004(28)PTC59(Bom)
s.a. bobde, j.1. this is a plaintiffs motion for restraining the defendants from selling their products hair oil, shampoo and soap (personal care products in class 3) under the trade mark 'ayush' so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the same as products of the plaintiffs which according to the plaintiffs are being sold under an almost identical trademark 'ayushakti'. the notice of motion is in a suit for the same relief based on the tort of passing mark and not on any statutory rights.2. according to the plaintiffs, after ascertaining in the market and conducting a manual search in the register maintained under the trade marks act, they adopted the trademark 'ayushakti' as an umbrella brand in respect of their goods. the plaintiffs claim that several products such as shampoo, hair oil, soap, cough mixture and pain balms were sold under the mark 'ayushakti'. in 1996 the plaintiffs applied for registration of the trademark ayushakti. the application is pending. in the year 1998 the name of the 1st plaintiff company was changed from dr. pankaj naram herbal' remedies to ayushakti ayurved private limited.3. in july, 2002 the plaintiffs noticed that product bearing a deceptively similar trademark has been launched in the market. plaintiffs claim that they received enquiries from customers and patients about whether the ayush and ayushakti were both from the plaintiffs. they, therefore, called upon the defendants to cease and desist from using the mark in october, 2002. .....
Tag this Judgment!