TIMBLO PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. KAMALINI R PAINGUINKAR
LAWS(BOM)-2009-10-3
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: PANAJI)
Decided on
October 07,2009
TIMBLO PRIVATE LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
KAMALINI R PAINGUINKAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
WANDER LTD. VS. ANTOX INDIA LTD. [REFERRED TO]HIND PLASTICS AND ANR. VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,BOMBAY AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN BALKRISHNA ZODGE VS. ALAKA SURESH ZODGE AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
ATCHUT V. S. VELINGCAR VS. TIMBLO LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SINGH VS. KARTAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SAHEBZADA MOHAMMAD KAMGARH SHAH VS. JAGDISH CHANDRA DEO DHABAI DEB [REFERRED TO]
K VENKATARAMIAH VS. A SEETHARAMA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
M N ARYAMURTHY VS. M D SUBBARAYA SETTY DEAD [REFERRED TO]
PROVASH CHANDRA DALUI VS. BISWANATH BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
DALPAT KUMAR VS. PRAHLAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. T N SAHANI [REFERRED TO]
N KAMALAN DEAD VS. AYYASAMY [REFERRED TO]
ITI LIMITED VS. SIEMENS PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. LALJI TANDON [REFERRED TO]
PERCEPT D MARK INDIA PVT LTD VS. ZAHEER KHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD VS. ARVINDBHAI RAMBHAI PATEL [REFERRED TO]
HARDESH ORES P LTD VS. HEDE AND COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND CONSTRUCTIONS CO PVT LTD VS. KALINGA MINING CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
ADHUNIK STEELS LTD VS. ORISSA MANGANESE AND MINERALS PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYA MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BIKASH CHANDRA DEB [REFERRED TO]
FRIENDS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY VS. NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
A. H. Joshi, J. -
(1.)Learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties have agreed for disposal of both these appeals, finally, at the stage of admission itself.
Background in brief:
(2.)Respondents, who are common in both appeals are Mine Owners who are, for the sake of brevity, referred to as Mine Owners.
The appellants are Limited Companies.
Both the appellant-Companies are seen to be belonging to one and the same group of Management/Promoters. Two different contracts are entered by mine owner with these different appellants. These two transactions are in fact a package.
Respective appellants in Appeal No. 61/09 and 60/09 are referred to for the sake of brevity as "Buyer" and "Extractor".
(3.)It appears that there are legal impediments in subleasing of the mining licence. Most of the Mine Owners and buyers / extractors have devised modality of entering into two contracts, one with buyer and another with extractor to undertake mining activity and processing. Same modality has been used/adopted in the present case as well.
Background in brief:
(2.)Respondents, who are common in both appeals are Mine Owners who are, for the sake of brevity, referred to as Mine Owners.
The appellants are Limited Companies.
Both the appellant-Companies are seen to be belonging to one and the same group of Management/Promoters. Two different contracts are entered by mine owner with these different appellants. These two transactions are in fact a package.
Respective appellants in Appeal No. 61/09 and 60/09 are referred to for the sake of brevity as "Buyer" and "Extractor".
(3.)It appears that there are legal impediments in subleasing of the mining licence. Most of the Mine Owners and buyers / extractors have devised modality of entering into two contracts, one with buyer and another with extractor to undertake mining activity and processing. Same modality has been used/adopted in the present case as well.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.