Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-09-2009
Reported in : 181TAXMAN66(Bom)
..... entire liability of the debenture-holder is fully met. m/s. molly trading private limited has also pledged the shares of hcl with jhaveri. apart from that, there are at least ..... pledged the shares of hcl infosystems ltd., to mr. amit jhaveri. considering those facts, the tax recovery officer held that the money received from the molly trading company limited cannot be termed as wrong and hence cannot be refunded.2. we may mention that subhash arora investment (p.) ltd., and another had filed writ petition ..... has also filed his affidavit and has filed compilation of documents. he has produced first a subscription agreement dated 5-5-1990 whereby m/s. molly trading company limited is a party as a guarantor. in terms of clause 4.5(a) the guarantor has agreed that the guarantee therein is continuing guarantee till the ..... bearing no. 1456 of 2008 challenging the notice and summons issued to petitioner no. 1 and sister concern under section 226(3) of the income-tax act and the order dated 23-11-2007 whereby the tax recovery officer had declined to lift the attachment levied on the petitioners, bankers and its depository participants ..... f.i. rebello, j.1. by an order under section 226(3)(vi) and section 226(3)(x) of the income-tax act, 1961 the tax recovery officer 16(1) held that the petitioners and m/s. subhash arora investment co. (p.) ltd. owed a debt to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-06-2009
Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR239
..... locus standi to request the court to confirm the bid of highest bidder, more particularly when the appellant is having 90 per cent of the debenture value of the company in liquidation. in this view of the matter, the appellant metropolitan infrahousing pvt. ltd.can be said to be a decree holder and on ..... this common judgment at the admission stage itself.3. the icici bank instituted a suit being suit no. 3636 of 1999 as debenture holders of the company in liquidation i.e. pal peugeot under debenture deed dated 21st december, 1997 for rs. 136.79 crores. the said suit was filed on 12th may, 1999. on 30th ..... fact that the appellant - metropolitan infrahousing pvt. ltd. is also a creditor of the company i.e. pal peugeot as they are holding 90 per cent of the debentures and to that extent they are also creditors of the company as well as in view of the fact that the trade union i.e. shakharamseth ..... were entitled to request the court to reduce the reserve price as the appellants were also pursuing the matter in their capacity as creditors of the debtor company. it is further submitted by mr. chinoy that in view of the same, the impugned order passed by the learned judge on 27th june, 2008 ..... confirmation of sale in their favour. before the learned single judge, the union viz. sakharamseth employees union asserting its right as a recognised union of the company i.e. pal peugeot, filed an affidavit to the effect that the reserve price should be reduced to rs. 661 crores and to accept the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-01-2009
..... . therefore, complainant was unable to make balance payment of allotment money. complainant wrote several letters, but company did not respond to the complainants letters. therefore, according to the complainant, even after payment of entire call moneys in time, o.ps. did not convert debentures into the shares and redeemed the amount of rs.10,593/- of rppl and rs.5,190 ..... shukla, advocate for the respondents. perused the record. according to the respondents, appellant/org. complainant is not a consumer within meaning of section 2(1)(d) of consumer protection act, 1986. appellant has not hired any services for consideration, for that matter purchased any goods from the respondents for consideration, with services or goods have found to be defective. it ..... existed between appellant and the respondents. therefore, this cannot be called as a consumer dispute. appellant is not a consumer within definition of section 2(1)(d) of consumer protection act, 1986. honble national commission in the case of morgan stanley mutual fund v/s. kartik das, (1994) 2 ctj page-385, held that such investors being merely prospective investors ..... were not consumers and not entitled to such reliefs under the consumer protection act, 1986. admittedly, appellant has applied for conversion in the year 1995 and filed consumer complaint in the year 2001 i.e. after six years without filing any delay condonation application .....Tag this Judgment!