Mumbai Court March 2000 Judgments

Polaroid India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nav Nirman Co. and ors. (No. 1)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]105CompCas683(Bom)

S.S. Nijjar, J. 1. This petition seeks winding up of the company on the ground that the company has failed to refund the security deposit in the sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000, which was paid by the petitioner to the company in consideration of the leave and licence agreement, which was entered into between the petitioner and the company on June 22, 1995. 2. Mr. Kadam pointed out various clauses of the leave and licence agreement to indicate that the document contains only the formal covenants which are provided for in the usual leave and licence agreement, initially the period of licence was 60 months commencing from July 15, 1995. Under the various clauses of this agreement, it is categorically stated that the occupation of the premises by the petitioner would not be tantamount to a tenancy and will not create any tenancy or other similar rights. It is also emphatically clarified that the occupation of the premises will not amount to any title to the said premises in the petitioner. In fact,...

Namgonda Jingonda Patil Vs. Appasaheb Bapurao Walwekar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR142

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Borkar for the petitioners. Mr. Ingale appears for the respondents.2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Jaysingpur for a declaration that the meetings of the respondent No. 5 Trust (an educational institution) held on 26.1.1997, 31.5.1997, 30.6.1997 and 25.12.1997 were non est and that the resolutions passed in those meetings be held to be non-enforceable and an injunction to act thereon. The petitioner herein is defendant Mo. 4 in that suit and in that suit specific allegations are made principally against the petitioner. It is stated in para 4 of the plaint that though respondent No. 4 herein was not well and not present in the meeting, his signatures were taken by the petitioner subsequently at various places on the resolutions. The signatures were sought from respondent No. 1 in similar manner, but he declined to sign since he had undergone an operation. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also have a s...

Shankar M. Tingote Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001CriLJ751

Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner is a registered owner of a commercial light vehicle (Mahindra mini truck bearing No. MWP 1339) and the said vehicle was purchased under financial assistance by the Bank of Maharashtra, Mill Corner Branch at Aurangabad in the year 1982. It had a capacity of two tonnes for goods carriage and the vehicle was subject to the hire purchase agreement with the Marathwada Development Corporation at Aurangabad, as well as the Bank of Maharashtra, Mill Corner Branch.2. The petitioner claims that on 24-7-87 he had parked the said vehicle some times in the morning, opposite Siddarth garden near the Central Bus Stand and with two of his friends he had gone for tea. When he came back after tea, he found his vehicle missing from the place where it was parked. On enquiries he learnt that the subject vehicle was towed by the traffic police and taken to the Kranti Chowk Police Station. He thereafter, claims to have approached the Police Sub-Inspector of Kranti Chowk Police...

Mrs. Parchal @ Zilliza Isuchukwa Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR223

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The Appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.8.1995 passed by the SpecialJudge, Greater Bombay, in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 92 of 1993, convicting and sentencing her to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay alone of Rs. 1 lakh in default to suffer 1 year R.I. for the offence under Section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, has come up in appeal before us.2. In short prosecution case runs as under:On 19.4.1993 the informant Nana Uttamrao Ahire P.W. 1 was attached as police constable to Azad Maidan, Narcotic Cell Unit, Bombay. While on duty, at about 2.30 p.m., he received information from an informant that a Nigerian lady named Eliza residing at Viler Villa, Ramchandani Marg, Colaba, was dealing in narcotic drugs; was in possession of such drugs; and was likely to leave the city, immediately. He gave the said information to P. 1. Ashok Hari Khedkar P.W. 8 who recorded it in the information book and passed it on to the D.C.P. Narayan Nirgude and A.C.P. Mr. More. Arran...

Kamat Hotels (i) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)78ITD241(Mum.)

1. These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Assessing Officer treating the assessee as an assessee in default under section 201, demanding the tax from the assessee which according to the Assessing Officer ought to have been deducted by the assessee and charging under section 201(1A) for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1998-99.2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of hoteliering and catering belonging to Kamat group, which is known for the restaurants it runs. In the course of its business, it entered into agreements with Madhu Fantasy Land Pvt. Ltd. ('MF' for short) on 13-10-1994 and with Pan Indian Paryatan Ltd ('PIP' for short) on 24-11-1994. We shall notice the terms of the agreement in some detail a little later, but here it is suffice to say that under these agreements the assessee was permitted to run and conduct the business in the restaurants/food outlets owned and set up by the aforesaid two companies in the amusements parks se...

Allana Frozen Foods (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)78ITD223(Mum.)

1. Two issues are involved in this appeal of the assessee for assessment year 1990-91. One issue is relating to the addition of Rs. 1,56,575 (wrongly typed as Rs. 56,575 in the grounds of appeal) under section 40A(3) and the other issue is relating to computation of deduction under section 80 HHC. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. With regard to the addition of Rs. 1,56,575 under section 40A(3), the learned counsel for the assessee conceded that the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 1989-90 in ITA No. 806/Bom/94, order dated 27th December, 1999, Respectfully following the aforementioned decision of the Tribunal, we uphold the disallowance made under section 40A(3).3. The only other ground of appeal is relating to the computation of deduction under section 80HHC. The Assessing Officer has granted the deduction to the assessee under section 80HHC. He has however adjusted the unabsorbed ...

Allana Frozen Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Two issues are involved in this appeal of the assessee for asst. yr.1990-91. One issue is relating to the addition of Rs. 1,56,575 (wrongly typed as Rs. 56,575 in the grounds of appeal) under Section 40A(3) and the other issue is relating to computation of deduction under Section 80HHC. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. With regard to the addition of Rs. 1,56,575 under Section 40A(3), the learned counsel for the assessee conceded that the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for asst. yr. 1989-90 in ITA No. 806/Bom/94, order dt. 27th Dec., 1999. Respectfully following the aforementioned decision of the Tribunal, we uphold the disallowance decision of the Tribunal, we uphold the disallowance made under Section 40A(3).3. The only other ground of appeal is relating to the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC. The AO has granted the deduction to the assessee under Section 80HHC. He has however adjust...

Carona Ltd. Vs. Sitaram Atmaram Ghag and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR37; 2000(3)BomCR608; [2002]112CompCas514(Bom); [2000(86)FLR391]; (2000)IILLJ296Bom

ORDERF.I. Rebello, J. 1. The petitioner employer has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to impugn the order dated 9th September, 1999 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 377 to 557 of 1998 by individual workman. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the said order is liable to be set aside amongst others on the following grounds:- (a) That a complaint had been filed by the recognized Union being Complaint No. 285/98 which has been disposed of by another Member of the Industrial Court by judgment and order dated November 17, 1999. Once the recognized union has filed a complaint another complaint at the instance of individual employees would not be maintainable, more so considering that it was the recognized Union which had first filed a complaint; (b) It is next contended that the Industrial Court acted without jurisdiction in directing the petitioners to pay both VRS compensation as also Wages as set out in the order. Once VRS wages w...

Association of Engineering Workers Vs. Wmi Cranes Limited and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR755; [2000(87)FLR754]

ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner Union by the present writ petition has impugned order dated September 9, 1999 passed on Exhibit U-2 rejecting the application for interim relief as also some other reliefs. The petitioner Union has filed thecomplaint which is numbered as 622/97. The complaint is filed under Items 1(a), (c), 2(a), (b), 4(a) and (f) of Schedule II of Items No. 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The petitioners also applied for interim relief. The interim relief as prayed for are as under:---(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this complaint to direct the Company to forthwith permit S/s. S.A. Sawant and S.K. Doddamani to report for work;(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this complaint to direct the Company to forthwith pay wages and benefits in terms of the settlement dated 1-12-96, to all the workmen whose names are stated in Exhibit 'G' to the Complaint...

Mrs. Fehmida Iqbal Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR589; 2000BomCR(Cri)589; 2000CriLJ3604

ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner who styles herself as wife of the detenu Iqbal alias Balu Rafiuddin Shaikh, has impugned the detention order dated 21-4-1999 passed by the second respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996) (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention which are also dated 21-4-1999 are annexed as Annexure A and C respectively to this petition and were contemporaneously served on the detenu on 3-5-1999.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned. detention order is founded on two C.Rs. namely C/R. No. 411 of 1998 under sections 452, 395, 397, 34 read with...