Varsha Shankarrao Phadke vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2018

On

PRONOUNCED ON AUGUST 31, 2018

P. C. :

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned

APP for State.

2 This is an application under section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1908 seeking enlargement on bail in Special MCOCA

Case No. 21 of 2016. The applicant herein is arrested on 4/12/2016.

The applicant herein is an advocate by profession. The investigation is

completed and charge-sheet is filed.

3 On 12/12/2015 Crime No. 477 of 2015 is registered at Kondwa

Police Station, Pune against the original accused persons namely Amol

Talwalkar
2 901.ba293.18.doc

Baswant, Bapu Nair, Deepak Kadam etc. for the offence punishable

under section 307, 387, 447, 504, 506(i) read with section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code. The accused were arrested. In the course of

investigation, the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime

Act were invoked on 26th December, 2015. The present applicant was

not named in the FIR. She was representing the accused persons as she

had always appeared for accused Bapu Nair. In the course of

investigation, mother and wife of Bapu Nair were arraigned as accused

persons. The applicant herein was representing mother and wife of the

accused Bapu Nair.

Vinayaga Marine Petro Ltd vs Excel Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd. … on 31 August, 2018

On

1. By consent of parties, the matters are heard finally at the

admission stage.

2. Mr.Gautam Ankhad, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent no.2 in the arbitration petition raises a preliminary

objection about the maintainability of these arbitration petitions on the

ground that none of these petitioners were parties to any arbitration

agreement between the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 and

thus cannot invoke section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

1996. This Court however directed all the parties to address this Court

on the issue of maintainability of the arbitration petitions raised by the

respondent no.2 and also on the merits of these arbitration petitions.

Both the parties have accordingly addressed this Court. Though this

Court had heard the Notice of Motion No.628 of 2017 in Commercial

9
::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2018 02:50:39 :::
arbp619-17g.doc

Suit No.669 of 2017 filed by Karamtara Engineering Private Limited

against Excel Metal Processors Private Limited & others, for sake of

convenience, a separate order is passed in the said notice of motion

and more particularly in view of there being no issue of

maintainability of suit raised by the defendants therein.

Dmson’S Metal Pvt Ltd vs Excel Metal Processors Pvt Ltd And … on 31 August, 2018

On

1. By consent of parties, the matters are heard finally at the

admission stage.

2. Mr.Gautam Ankhad, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent no.2 in the arbitration petition raises a preliminary

objection about the maintainability of these arbitration petitions on the

ground that none of these petitioners were parties to any arbitration

agreement between the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 and

thus cannot invoke section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

1996. This Court however directed all the parties to address this Court

on the issue of maintainability of the arbitration petitions raised by the

respondent no.2 and also on the merits of these arbitration petitions.

Both the parties have accordingly addressed this Court. Though this

Court had heard the Notice of Motion No.628 of 2017 in Commercial

9
::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2018 02:50:29 :::
arbp619-17g.doc

Suit No.669 of 2017 filed by Karamtara Engineering Private Limited

against Excel Metal Processors Private Limited & others, for sake of

convenience, a separate order is passed in the said notice of motion

and more particularly in view of there being no issue of

maintainability of suit raised by the defendants therein.

Vsc Steelers Pvt Ltd vs Excel Metal Precessors Pvt Ltd And … on 31 August, 2018

On

1. By consent of parties, the matters are heard finally at the

admission stage.

2. Mr.Gautam Ankhad, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent no.2 in the arbitration petition raises a preliminary

objection about the maintainability of these arbitration petitions on the

ground that none of these petitioners were parties to any arbitration

agreement between the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 and

thus cannot invoke section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

1996. This Court however directed all the parties to address this Court

on the issue of maintainability of the arbitration petitions raised by the

respondent no.2 and also on the merits of these arbitration petitions.

Both the parties have accordingly addressed this Court. Though this

Court had heard the Notice of Motion No.628 of 2017 in Commercial

9
::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2018 02:50:19 :::
arbp619-17g.doc

Suit No.669 of 2017 filed by Karamtara Engineering Private Limited

against Excel Metal Processors Private Limited & others, for sake of

convenience, a separate order is passed in the said notice of motion

and more particularly in view of there being no issue of

maintainability of suit raised by the defendants therein.

Karamtara Engineering Pvt Ltd vs Excel Metal Processors Pvt Ltd And … on 31 August, 2018

On

1. The Notice of Motion No.628 of 2017 in Commercial Suit

No.669 of 2017 is filed by the plaintiff inter-alia praying for an order

and direction against the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay and/or

defendant no.1 to forthwith hand over to the applicant 24 HR steel

coils weighing about 555.125 metric tons described in Exhibit “A” to

the plaint and also seeks injunction against the Court Receiver, High

Court, Bombay and/or from defendant no.1 from taking further steps in

regard to the quantity of 24 HR steel coils which according to the

applicant belongs to the applicant.

2. In the plaint, the applicant has applied for declaration that

the said 24 HR steel coils which are in possession of the defendants

or any one or more of them either through itself or themselves or

through the Court Receiver belongs to the applicant and also seeks a

mandatory order that the said 24 HR steel coils weighing 555.125

metric tons be handed over to the applicant in good usable conditions

as lawful owner thereof.

Rajeev Raj Kumar (Company … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 31 August, 2018

On

02. Both these applications have been filed
invoking the inherent powers of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
in order to quash and set aside the order of issuance
of process and the proceedings filed against the
applicants by respondent no.02, before learned
Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Court No.07,
Aurangabad. Criminal Application No. 2052 of 2018
challenges the order of issuance of process passed on
16.11.2017 and proceedings in Summary Criminal Case
No. 7882 of 2017. Criminal Application No. 2055 of
2018 challenges the order of issuance of process
passed on 02.11.2017 and proceedings in Summary
Criminal Case No. 7504 of 2017. Both the proceedings
are filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 [For short, hereinafter referred
to as “N.I. Act”].

Ashok Govindrao Bilolikar vs Ramchandra Kisanrao Kagne And Anr on 31 August, 2018

On

—-

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE &
SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI. JJ.

DATE : 31-08-2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

1. Present petition has been filed by learned 2 nd Ad-hoc Additional

Sessions Judge, Parbhani under Sec. 15 (2) of The Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 for taking action against respondent and punishing

him.

::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2018 02:50:56 :::

( 2 ) CP 1-2006

Khushi Alloys Pvt.Ltd vs Excel Metal Processors Pvt.Ltd … on 31 August, 2018

On

1. By consent of parties, the matters are heard finally at the

admission stage.

2. Mr.Gautam Ankhad, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent no.2 in the arbitration petition raises a preliminary

objection about the maintainability of these arbitration petitions on the

ground that none of these petitioners were parties to any arbitration

agreement between the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 and

thus cannot invoke section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

1996. This Court however directed all the parties to address this Court

on the issue of maintainability of the arbitration petitions raised by the

respondent no.2 and also on the merits of these arbitration petitions.

Both the parties have accordingly addressed this Court. Though this

Court had heard the Notice of Motion No.628 of 2017 in Commercial

9
::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2018 02:50:02 :::
arbp619-17g.doc

Suit No.669 of 2017 filed by Karamtara Engineering Private Limited

against Excel Metal Processors Private Limited & others, for sake of

convenience, a separate order is passed in the said notice of motion

and more particularly in view of there being no issue of

maintainability of suit raised by the defendants therein.

Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd vs Excel Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd. … on 31 August, 2018

On

1. By consent of parties, the matters are heard finally at the

admission stage.

2. Mr.Gautam Ankhad, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent no.2 in the arbitration petition raises a preliminary

objection about the maintainability of these arbitration petitions on the

ground that none of these petitioners were parties to any arbitration

agreement between the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 and

thus cannot invoke section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

1996. This Court however directed all the parties to address this Court

on the issue of maintainability of the arbitration petitions raised by the

respondent no.2 and also on the merits of these arbitration petitions.

Both the parties have accordingly addressed this Court. Though this

Court had heard the Notice of Motion No.628 of 2017 in Commercial

9
::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2018 02:50:10 :::
arbp619-17g.doc

Suit No.669 of 2017 filed by Karamtara Engineering Private Limited

against Excel Metal Processors Private Limited & others, for sake of

convenience, a separate order is passed in the said notice of motion

and more particularly in view of there being no issue of

maintainability of suit raised by the defendants therein.

True Value Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs Excel Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd. … on 31 August, 2018

On

1. By consent of parties, the matters are heard finally at the

admission stage.

2. Mr.Gautam Ankhad, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent no.2 in the arbitration petition raises a preliminary

objection about the maintainability of these arbitration petitions on the

ground that none of these petitioners were parties to any arbitration

agreement between the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 and

thus cannot invoke section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

1996. This Court however directed all the parties to address this Court

on the issue of maintainability of the arbitration petitions raised by the

respondent no.2 and also on the merits of these arbitration petitions.

Both the parties have accordingly addressed this Court. Though this

Court had heard the Notice of Motion No.628 of 2017 in Commercial

9
::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2018 02:49:54 :::
arbp619-17g.doc

Suit No.669 of 2017 filed by Karamtara Engineering Private Limited

against Excel Metal Processors Private Limited & others, for sake of

convenience, a separate order is passed in the said notice of motion

and more particularly in view of there being no issue of

maintainability of suit raised by the defendants therein.