Court : Mumbai
A.S. Oka, J. THE CONTROVERSY 1. The issue which arises for consideration in this group of Appeals is whether the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Harsha Nitin Kokate v. The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited and Others (2010(3)Mh.L.J 780)is correct. In Harsha Nitin Kokate's case, in paragraphs 24 and 25, it was held thus: 24. In the light of these judgments section 109A of the Companies Act is required to be interpreted with regard to the vesting of the shares of the holder of the shares in the nominee upon his death. The act sets out that the nomination has to be made during the life time of the holder as per procedure prescribed by law. If that procedure is followed, the nominee would become entitled to all the rights in the shares to the exclusion of all other persons. The nominee would be made beneficial owner thereof. Upon such nomination, therefore, all the rights incidental to ownership would follow. This would include the right to transfer the shares, pledg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, seeking to quash the orders dated 1 April, 2009 and 7 January, 2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ( DRAT ) in Appeal No.79 of 2008. By the order dated 1 April, 2009 the DRAT granted a complete waiver of deposit under section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act ). By the order dated 7 January, 2014 the DRAT entertained the appeal filed by the borrower (Respondent No.1 herein) on merits and thereafter set aside the order and judgment dated 26 March, 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai ( DRT ) in Securitization Application No. 17 of 2007....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants (original plaintiffs) have impugned the judgment and decree dated 2nd April 2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Satara, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.165 of 2005 filed by the appellants. The appellants had impugned the judgment and decree dated 29th April 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, dismissing Regular Civil Suit No.171 of 1992 filed by the appellants inter-alia praying for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit properties bearing survey no.222 (old), 234 (new), admeasuring 2-H 27-R situated at Wai and the property bearing survey No.254/2-B (old), and the property bearing survey 8/2-B (new), admeasuring 1-H, 44-R situated at Shelarwadi. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this second appeal are as under :- 2. The parties in this judgment are described as per their original status in the suit filed by the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants who were the legal heirs and representatives of the original plaintiffs have impugned the judgment and decree dated 29th July 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gadhinglaj allowing the Regular Civil Appeal No.88 of 1998 filed by the legal heirs and representatives of the original defendants thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.33 of 1979 and dismissing the suit filed by the original plaintiff inter alia praying for re-conveyance of the land bearing Survey No.366 of the Gadhinglaj town and for possession. The parties in this judgment are described as per their original status in the suit filed by the plaintiffs before the learned trial Judge. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this second appeal are as under:- 2. The suit was filed by Kalgonda Balgonda Patil against the Sidgonda Subhana Patil who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges an order passed by the Industrial Court at Mumbai in a complaint of unfair legal practice under items 1(a), (b) and 6 of Schedule II and items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 filed by the union of its employees against the Petitioner. By the impugned order, the Industrial court held the complaint to be maintainable. 2. The Petitioner is in the business of provision of various types of services to airline companies within the airport precincts. These services, which are allied to air transportation, include exterior and interior aircraft cleaning, baggage handling, customer care, etc. Respondent No.1, who claims to be a registered trade union of workmen of the Petitioner, filed a complaint of unfair labour practice against the Petitioner before the Industrial Court at Mumbai, claiming inter alia benefits of permanency and wages as permanent employees for sixty workmen of the Peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
.S. Oka, J. 1. A Notice of Motion was taken out by the appellants-defendants in the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for seeking an order to refer the dispute in the suit to arbitration. By the impugned order, the said Notice of Motion has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. There was a Clearing and Forwarding Agency agreement (for short the said Agreement ) executed by and between the plaintiffs and the defendants on 1st January 2007. In the said agreement, the plaintiffs were described as Sellers and the defendants were described as Clearing and Forwarding Agents. The defendants agreed to act as agents of the plaintiffs' products for the purpose of importing/stocking the products and selling the products as instructed at the risk of the plaintiffs. 3. The case made out in the plaint is that upon the request of the defendants, the plaintiffs supplied and delivered certain pharmaceutical products to the defendants between the period from January 2008 till November 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act ), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 9th August 2011 made by the arbitral tribunal allowing few claims made by the respondent and directing the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs.16,55,733/- with interest @15% p.a. from the date of award till the date of payment to the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this arbitration petition are under:- 2. On 30th April 1998, the petitioner invited tender for erection, testing and commissioning of chemical soar water treatment facility for Issar Oil Limited at Vadinar. The respondent submitted their bid pursuant to the said offer issued by the petitioner on 11th May 1998. The petitioner accepted the final offer made by the respondent and issued a letter of intent on 29th May 1998. The parties, thereafter, entered into a Contract on 29th May 1998 for erection, testing and commissioning o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay over to Respondent No.3 or Respondent No.4 the sale proceeds of the property, more particularly described in Exh B to the Petition (for short the said property ) and direct Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to issue a no claim certificate and or discharge certificate to the Petitioners. The Petitioners have also sought a mandamus directing Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to forbear and refrain from, in any manner, asserting any charge on the property more particularly described in Exh B to the Petition and/or from taking any coercive steps in respect of said property for recovery of any Sales Tax dues of one M/s Weiler International Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (for short the Defau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. By these two Sales Tax References, the Second Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (for short the MSTT ) has referred the following questions of law for an opinion of this Court under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short BST Act ). These references have been preferred at the instance of the Applicant. The question of law referred for our opinion are as under:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of the Schedule Entries C-II-17 and C-II-46A appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, was the Tribunal legally justified in holding that the hard-anodised utensils sold by the appellant under his sale invoice dated 12.01.1995 is a heat-resistent cookware under the Schedule Entry C-II- 46A and hence does not get covered by the Schedule Entry C-II-17? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of the Schedule Entries C-II-24 and C-II-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. At the outset the learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks deletion of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 from the array of the Respondents as they are formal parties. The said Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are accordingly allowed to be deleted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 16/06/2015 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Rural Development, Government of Maharashtra by which order the Appeal filed by the Petitioners came to be dismissed and resultantly the order dated 12/04/2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune came to be confirmed. 4. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above Writ Petition can in brief be stated thus: The Petitioners herein were the members of the Grampanchayat Rukadi for the term 2008 to 2012. The Respondent No.7 herein is the resident of the said vil...
Tag this Judgment!