Mumbai Court June 1996 Judgments

Mrs. Deepika A. Mehta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are appeals by two assessees of the same group that involve common issues and, therefore, these appeals have been grouped and are being disposed of by this common order. Three of the common issues involve the identical issues as were considered in the appeals for the asst. yr. 1990-91, namely, violation of principles of natural justice by the Revenue in the framing of the assessments, additions based on the report of auditor M/s Arjun K. S. Aiyar & Co., Chartered Accountants (hereinafter referred to as AKSR) are wholly unjustified and the additions for rights acquisitions of rights shares.2. The appellants had raised an additional ground of appeal that reads, "the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notice issued under s. 148 is bad in law and the consequent assessment is, therefore, also bad in law and void". The appellants also had challenged the levy of interest under ss. 234A and B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the like manner as...

Smt. Henriqueta S. Afonso and anr. Vs. Shri Lino Falcaon and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR349

R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioners (plaintiffs in the suit and hereinafter referred as plaintiffs) had filed a suit claiming easementary right of way through the property of the respondents (defendants in the suit and hereinafter referred as defendants) and alternatively prayed for passage on payment of compensation through the property of the defendants. The property of the defendants is bounded on the southern side by the property of the plaintiffs. The suit was for declaration in respect of the said right of way and alternatively a claim was put forward under Article 2309 of the Portuguese Civil Code for a passage on payment of compensation. The plaintiffs had prayed for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from obstructing the suit way and/or interfering with the suit way. The plaintiffs had also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove all obstructions, plantation, barriers, etc. obstructing the suit way. The obstruction sought to be remo...

Rama Patilba Gunjal Vs. Vithal Tulshiram Gunjal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR230

R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner, who alleges himself to be a tenant on the field Survey No. 403, situated at village Daithana Gunjal with an area of 1 Hectare and 59 Acres, has approached this Court challenging the order, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 23rd of January, 1984, in Revision Application MRT-AH-IX-1/81 (TNC-B-361/81), whereby the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside the order, dated 13th October, 1981, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in appeal and restored the order, dated 10-11-1980, passed by the Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Parner, whereby the learned Additional Tahsildar had declared that the present petitioner-Rama Patil Gunjal is not a tenant on the field in question. The initiation of the present proceedings was on the basis of an application under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the purposes of brevity). The responden...

Shri Mafaldo Fernandes, Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Vs. Shri Kushali ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR73; 1996(2)GLT46

Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Rule by consent to be heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner who is a Sarpanch of village Panchayat of Avedem-Cotombi and Chaifi is challenging in this writ petition, an order passed by the Goa State Election Commission, Panaji, dated 30th April, 1996, which is exhibited as Exhibit 'G' in this writ petition. The State Election Commissioner, third respondent herein, by order impugned, dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed his petition as Case No. 2 before the Goa State Election Commission seeking a declaration that the first respondent herein, namely Shri Kushali S. Kalekar, stood disqualified for non-payment of dues to the Panchayat. It is necessary to note a few more facts to complete the narration of facts.It is borne out from the records that the aforesaid petition was filed by the petitioner before the Goa State Election Commission on the eve of a resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' being moved against him by the first respond...

Gopal Shrikisan Agrawal Vs. Vinayak Pralhad Jamkhedkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR343

R.G. Deshpande, J.1. This is a petition by an unsuccessful tenant, who has lost in the first round before the lower Appellate Court in spite of having a suit dismissed against him. The facts of the case in nut-shell are as under.2. The present petitioner - Gopal happened to be a tenant in the property, house No. 1160/2 at village Shendurni, tq. Jamner of which Vinayak Pralhad Jamkhedkar, the respondent happened to be the landlord. Out of the suit premises, a room on the ground floor admeasuring 18 x 15 ft. was leased out to the present petitioner on the monthly rent of Rs. 7/-. Tenancy commenced some time in the year 1969 and was as per gregorian calendar. The petitioner was served with two notices i.e. on 5-7-1973 and 30-6-1974, whereby it was pointed out that he was in arrears of rent and he was, therefore, called upon to pay the arrears, as also to hand over the possession of the suit premises. As per the notice, the tenancy stood terminated at the end of 30th July, 1974 i.e. in pur...

Abdul Rehman Siddique and ors. Vs. Ahmed Mia Gulam MohuddIn Ahmedji an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR696; (1996)98BOMLR133

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The aforesaid two appeals are directed against the order dated 31-11-1994/1-12-1994 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court on the Notice of Motion No. 4539 of 1994 and, therefore, these two appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Ahmedmia Gulam Mohuddin Ahmedji, the original plaintiff and respondent No. 1 in both the appeals filed a suit against the original defendant No. 1 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (respondent No. 2 in A.O. No. 1528 of 1994 and respondent No. 2 in A.O. No. 39 of 1995) and original defendants Nos. 2 to 31, some of whom are appellants in A.O. No. 39 of 1995, and, respondents Nos. 2 to 21 in A.O. No. 1528 of 1994 praying therein that it be declared that the construction erected on suit property i.e. City Survey No. 1/358, Matunga Division, Bombay described in plan at Exhibit-D to the plaint is unauthorised, illegal and liable to be demolished. The plaintiff also claimed the relief that defendants Nos. 2 t...

Smt. Bhagirathibai Gangadhar Vartak and ors. Vs. Subhash Anant Inamdar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR34

G.D. Kamat, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the judgment and decree dated 7th February 1986 of the Judge of the Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No. 2170 of 1979 which directs the eviction of the petitioners and the appellate judgment and decree dated 13th January 1989 whereby the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.2. The afore-mentioned Civil Suit was instituted by Shri Subhash Anant Inamdar, since deceased against Smt. Bhagirathibai Gangadhar Vartake for the eviction of the latter and restoration of residential flat bearing No. 402, of Building No. 1443, Shukrawar Peth Pune. The ground invoked by deceased Subhash Inamder was that he needed Flat No. 402 (for short 'the demised premises) for his personal occupation as he has already retired from Defence Services (Air Force) on 30th June 1977. For that matter in his suit for eviction, he claimed the benefit of Section 13A(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, ...

Rashidabi W/O S.K. Musa Vs. Laxmibai Babasaheb Bhalekar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR257

A.D. Mane, J.1. Rule is made returnable forthwith. In this Writ Petition the petitioner challenges the order made on 30.1.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, SD, Jalna, allowing the election petition and declaring that the election of the petitioner from Ward No. 2 of Village Gram Panchayat of Paradgaon from reserved seat of OBC (Woman) was invalid and further declaring the respondent as returned candidate from the said reserved seat by way of amending the result.2. The respondent No. 1 filed the election petition No. 2 of 1995 in the court of Civil Judge, JD, Ambad, inter alia challenging the election of the petitioner for woman seat belonging to OBC. The only ground raised by the respondent No. 1 was that the petitioner though belongs to Qureshi Khatik community, it is not included in OBC category. It is in SC category. The Petitioner was, therefore, not entitled to contest the said election for the seat reserved for OBC category.3. The Petitioner contested the election-petition ...

Mrs. Deepika A. Mehta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. (Sudhi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Mumbai)104

ORDERA. KALYANASUNDHARAM, A.M. :These are appeals by two assessees of the same group that involve common issues and, therefore, these appeals have been grouped and are being disposed of by this common order. Three of the common issues involve the identical issues as were considered in the appeals for the asst. yr. 1990-91, namely, violation of principles of natural justice by the Revenue in the framing of the assessments, additions based on the report of auditor M/s Arjun K. S. Aiyar & Co., Chartered Accountants (hereinafter referred to as AKSR) are wholly unjustified and the additions for rights acquisitions of rights shares.2. The appellants had raised an additional ground of appeal that reads, 'the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notice issued under s. 148 is bad in law and the consequent assessment is, therefore, also bad in law and void'. The appellants also had challenged the levy of interest under ss. 234A and B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ac...

Bandra Cecelia Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Another Vs. State ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1996Bom426; 1996(4)BomCR674; (1996)98BOMLR9

ORDER1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notification dated 7th May, 1992issued by the State Government under Section 31(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) in so far as itchanges the reservation of plot bearing CitySurvey No. F951 & I No. 53 of TP Scheme IV,IIIrd Road Bombay from 'MunicipalDispensary & Nurses' Quarters' to 'Recreation Ground'. The petitioners have alsochallenged the order dated 28th Dec. 1994rejecting the petitioners' application underSection 24(1) of the Urban Land. Ceiling andRegulation Act, 1976 (ULC Act) for allotment of the said land to the petitioner No. 1society for constructing houses for its members. Petitioner No. 1 is a proposed cooperative society. Petitioner No. 2 is theChairman of petitioner No. 1 society. It is thecase of the petitioners that they had enteredinto an agreement of sale on 21st Sept 1975for the purchase of the said land with (heowner Mrs. Myrtle Almeida. It is further thecase of the petitioners th...