Mumbai Court November 1997 Judgments

Harsharansingh Pratapsingh Gujral and ors. Vs. Lokhandwala Builders Lt ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR560; 1998(1)BomCR516

S.S. Nijjar, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit praying for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from constructing any additional building/structure of whatsoever nature on the open space of the suit property described in Ex. A to the plaint as shown in green colour in the plan at Ex. C to the plaint. The plaintiffs also pray for a mandatory decree directing the defendants to provide 11953 sq. ft. = 1110.43 sq. mtrs. recreational ground open space on the suit property. A direction is sought to the defendants to form and register a co-operative society or any other corporate body of all flat purchasers and the purchasers of the row houses constructed on the suit property and to execute a conveyance in favour of the society/corporate body of all the flat purchasers and the purchasers of the row houses transferring the whole of the right, title and interest of the defendants in the suit property including the portion reserved in Bombay's Development Plan for a public pu...

All Goa Independent Students Union, Mapusa Vs. University of Goa Throu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR149; 1998(4)BomCR531

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Amicus Curiae, appointed by the Court on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. A. Agni, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.2. On 8th July, 1997 the Registry received an application from All Goa Independent Students Union. The grievance of the Students Union was that the University of Goa, by its negligent attitude in conducting the examinations and the lack of infrastructural facilities in the Colleges and University has failed to conduct the examinations in accordance with Law and particularly the Ordinance governing such examinations. On the basis of the said application received by the Registry, cognizance was taken and suo motu writ petition was registered. Notice was issued to the University of Goa and in response thereto an affidavit has been filed along with the Annexures which we shall refer hereafter.3. Number of grievances spelt out in the communication dated 8th July, 1997 bythe Students Union read thus:-'1. The clas...

Gujarat Guardians Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT90Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue in this appeal is the eligibility to Modvat credit of the duty paid on electric wires and cables, 'G' rack, and ceramic refractories. The goods were received and credit taken by the appellant in terms of Rule 57Q in August, and September, 1994. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner has disallowed the credit on the ground that the goods are not capital goods as defined in the Explanation to Rule 57Q.2. We have heard both sides. The departmental representative adopts the reasoning in the order. We shall discuss each of the items separately.Electrical wires and cables : The Commissioner, has disallowed the credit on these goods for the following reasons. "Looking to the nature of capital goods received I find that the electrical wires and cables which are vised for connecting the supply from one place to another place do not fall within the purview of the capital goods, because the measurements of such electric wires and cables depend upon the distance of the ...

Kantilal Chunilal and Sons Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(74)LC834Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits.2. Dispute in this case relates to non-refund of a part of Rs. 11,69,622.04 being excess duty recovered from the appellant on the basis of prices charged by alleged related persons. The controversy relating to related person having been settled in favour of the appellant, appellant claimed to be entitled to receive the amount. The amount was deposited by the Department before the Supreme Court and was allowed to be withdrawn by the appellant on furnishing bank guarantee as per direction of the Supreme Court. The question of finalisation of duty payable remained and was taken up for consideration. In doing so the Assistant Collector found that excess duty had been collected by the appellant from customers and the benefit of refund had not been passed on and the amount has to be treated as part of wholesale price and profit in the hands of the assessee and the assessable valu...

Satpaul D. Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. We find it convenient to dispose of these two cross-appeals, one by the assessee and one by the Revenue for asst. yr. 1989-90, by this consolidated order.2. We first take up the appeal of the assessee. The dispute in this appeal is relating to the levy of interest under s. 234A, 234B and 234C. The AO had made assessment under s. 143(3) and levied interest.The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) and inter alia objected to the action of the AO in not treating a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 being the cash seized during the search on 25th November, 1988, as tax paid in advance for purposes of levy of interest under s. 234A, 234B and 234C.3. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. There was a search and seizure action in this case on 25th/26th November, 1988. Out of the cash of Rs. 1,75,000 found a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was seized.During the course of search, the assessee disclosed income of Rs. 3,73,815 of taxation on account of value of jewellery. On 15th March, 1989, a request was ma...

Mansinh Dharamsey Chickal Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)66ITD122(Mum.)

1. This is an assessee's appeal against the order of the Dy.Commissioner (Appeals), C-Range, Mumbai, dated 2-11-1995 and it relates to assessment year 1991-92.2. The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 1991-92, he filed a return of income on 28-8-1991 declaring a sum of Rs. 24,370. An intimation under section 143(1)(a) was sent to the assessee. While submitting the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction of 50 per cent. in the compensation received from the purchasers of Rs. 7,800 under section 48(2) and he claimed deduction of Rs. 3,900. Purporting to make adjustment, the ITO disallowed the deduction claimed and added it to the income of the assessee in the intimation sent under section 143(1)(a). While the returned income was Rs. 24,370, the income on which the assessment was made stood at Rs. 28,272. Thereupon, the assessee filed a petition under section 154 before the ITO on 21-1-1992. It was sought to be explained in the petition that the amount of Rs. 7,8...

Raosaheb S/O Punjaji Kote Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR41; 1998(2)BomCR826

ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel.3. Shirdi village initially had a Village Panchayat under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 and due to the vast growth in the population owing partly to the Shirdi temple devotees settled at Shirdi and increasing business activities, the town grew faster and in 1990 Village Panchayat was dissolved and 'C' class Municipal Council was constituted. The Council was named as Shirdi Municipal Council and the Administrator took charge, who continued till 1994. In consequence of the Maharashtra Ordinance No. VII of 1994, the Municipal Councillors seats for 'C' class Municipal Council were fixed at 10 and election programme came to be announced for the election of the 10 Municipal Wards of Shirdi Municipal Council. However, when thei election was announced, section 9 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats Act, 1965 (hereinaft...

Smt. Nalinibai N. Patil Vs. Kamalya R. Dhanwa and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR569; 1998(3)BomCR211

ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The orders passed by the Tahsildar, Palghar in Case No. Adiwasi 1512-63 and the appellate order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Bombay in REV.TRB. 16 of 1983 dated 24th July, 1984 arechallenged in this writ petition. These two orders arise out of an application filed by the respondent under section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Restoration Act'). The respondent is an Adiwasi belonging to Malhar Koli community. According to the respondent, the land comprising S.No. 31/2 and S.No. 30 of Tokrale Village, Taluka Palghar District : Thane, belonging to the petitioner's husband as landlord and admittedly the respondent here was a tenant. By virtue of section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the respondent were declared to be a deemed purchaser and purchase price was fixed in the year 1961-62 to be paid in instalments beginning from 1-1-1962. ...

Digamber Shankar Bhalerao Vs. Maharashtra State Co-op. Housing Finance ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR277

A.Y. Sakhare, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the decision to revert him from the post of Deputy Manager to the post of Class I Officer. 2. In the year 1976, the petitioner joined the services of the respondents as Junior Officer. In the year 1991, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Manager. The respondents found certain lapses on the part of the petitioner while discharging his duty as Deputy Manager. In the year 1996, show cause notice was issued and after holding enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The Staff Committee, Disciplinary Authority by its resolution dated 26th August 1997 resolved to revert the petitioner from the post of Deputy Manager to the post of Class I Officer. The said decision/resolution was challenged before the Appellate Authority viz., Directors, who in the Board of Directors' meeting dated 17th Septembe...

Satpaul D. Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Mumbai)98

ORDERM. A. Bakshi, JM.We find it convenient to dispose of these two cross-appeals, one by the assessee and one by the revenue for assessment year 1989-90, by this consolidated order.2. We first take up the appeal of the assessee. The dispute in this appeal is relating to the levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C. The assessing officer had made assessment under section 143(3) and levied interest. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and inter alia objected to the action of the assessing officer in not treating a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 being the cash seized during the search on 25-11- 1988, as tax paid in advance for purposes of levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C.3. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. There was a search and seizure action in this case on 25th/26th Nov., 1988. Out of the cash of Rs. 1,75,000 found a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was seized. During the course of search, the assessee disclosed income of Rs. 3,73,815 of taxat...