Mumbai Court July 2000 Judgments

Teresinha Coelho and ors. Vs. Inacio Pio Jesus De Sa or Inacio Sa

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR77

V. C. Daga, J. 1. Difference of opinion on a question of law having arisen between two learned Benches of Single Judges of this Court, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has in these circumstances ordered this petition to be placed before the Division Bench, to resolve the difference. QUESTION TO BE RESOLVED The question giving rise for difference of opinion between the two learned Judges, which has been referred for our consideration, is framed in the following terms:-- 'Whether the decision of Mamlatdar under section 32(2)'of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Mundkar Act or Act' as context may require) on an issue being referred to it under section 32(1) of the said Mundkar Act is subject to an Appeal under section 24 of the said Act or not? in other words, whether the decision given by the Mamlatdar attains finality as the Civil Court is bound by it and later on, so far as right of appeal is concerned, it having been given u...

Smt. Fatima Joao Vs. Village Panchayat of Merces and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR680; 2001(1)MhLj836

Daga, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the culmination of feud between two neighbours. Much of the ills of life is the result of the people not learning how to live and let live.Brief narration of history to appreciate rival contentions may be stated as under :2. The petitioner claims to be the co-owner of the property popularly known as 'Buttem Bhat' surveyed under No. 134/4 of Murda Village, Merces, Ilhas, Goa. The said properly is a residential house with adjoining open space. The petitioner claims to have acquired right and interest in the said property by virtue of her marriage, that is through her husband who is employed in Middle East.3. The respondent No. 2 is residing in the property surveyed under No. 135/3, situated on the western side of the petitioner's property, part of which he claims to have purchased. In short, respondent No. 2 owns and possesses the adjoining plots. The petitioner's plot is eastern one and the respondent No. 2'...

Satish Ganesh Saphtarshi and ors. Vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(89)FLR405]; (2001)IIILLJ50Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. A finding of misconduct having been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry held by the employer and, upon the imposition of a penalty of dismissal, the Petitioner workmen filed a complaint in the First Labour Court, Pune. The complaint was to the effect that the employer had committed an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The complaint was initially rejected by the Labour Court by an order dated April 30, 1986. The aggrieved workmen filed a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court. By a judgment and order dated January 30, 1995, the Learned single Judge, Mr. B.N. sriKRISHNA, held that the disciplinary enquiry had been vitiated by npn observance of the principles of natural justice, in that the statements and reports of witnesses on the basis of which the charges were framed were not supplied to the workmen. At that stage, apart from the enqui...

State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(91)FLR255]; (2002)IVLLJ275Bom; 2002(Supp.)Bom.C.R.270

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners, the State of Maharashtra, Forest Department and the Divisional Forest Officer, Ahmednagar have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar on July 14, 1992 declaring that the petitioners had engaged in an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act, and directing them to cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labour practice and further directing the petitioners to confirm and make permanent all those employees named in annexure 'A' to the complaint except the employees at serial Nos. 9. 41 and 44 and to pay them all the consequential benefits including their back wages.2. The Respondent Union had filed a; complaint of unfair labour practice before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, at Ahmednagar, complaining that the petitioners had engaged in an unfair labour practice within the meaning of item 6 of Sc...

Anand D. Gaikwad and ors. Vs. Saifee A. Gandhi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR476

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. These writ petitions are directed against the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay by separate orders dated 15-11-1999 on Interim Notice Nos. 1201 of 1998, 1199 of 1998 and 1200 of 1998 respectively. The respondents have filed 3 separate suits against each of the petitioner herein before the Small Causes Court at Bombay being RAE Suit No. 499/1197 of 1993, 493/1196 of 1993 and 495/1198 of 1993. The said suits were filed for possession of shop Nos. 1 to 6 on the ground floor of Noor Manzil, corner of Parel and Chinchpokali at Dr. Ambedkar Road, Mumbai-27. It is not in dispute that each of the petitioner is the tenant in the said suit premises prior to the suit building was purchased by the respondents herein in the year 1992. 2. The suit for possession has been filed against each of the petitioner only on the ground of sub-letting. The petitioner resisted the said suit by filing written statement. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondents file...

Goa Foundation and ors. Vs. State of Goa Through Secretary and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR813

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioners 1 and 2 are Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act. Petitioner No. 2 is also an environmental society. Members of both the petitioners are nationals and citizens of India. The objects of the petitioner No. 1, amongst others, are to halt the ecological degradation of environment and to formulate and implement programmes for the rehabilitation and development of the Goan environment and to restore an ecological balance. Members of both the petitioner societies as citizens of India have the fundamental duty to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.2. Respondent No. 1 granted to respondent No. 4 a lease of land bearing Survey No. 12 of village Potrem in Sanguem Taluka for the purpose of erecting a beneficiation plant and purposes related therewith. Petitioners pleaded that a rich forest lies on the said plot. Respondent No. 2 is responsible for ...

Smt. Anusaya W/O Bajrang and ors. Vs. Smt. Raghunath Shankar Rahate an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR32

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The Appellants in Second Appeal No. 573 of 1993 are the two Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1979 which the Respondent No. 1 had filed against them as well as the Respondent No. 2. That suit was concerning a house property of the size of 53ft.x 13.25ft. situated at House Nos. 333-A and 334-A at Patan, District Satara. The Respondent No. 1 in this Appeal had filed the said suit for reconveyance concerning the said house property and possession thereof. The Respondent No. 2 to this Appeal is the original Defendant No. 3 who was occupying a part of the premises and by now he has given a writing that he has no concern or interest in the premises. As of now the contest remains only between the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1.2. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 1989. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Respondent No. 1 herein preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 180 of 1989 to the Di...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamlashankar P. Joshi and Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. In this appeal by the Department, objection is taken to the decision of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs. 52,762 made by invoking the provisions of Section 40(b) of the IT Act.2. The assesses is a partnership firm engaged in imported as well as indigenous bearings. While completing the assessment, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 52,762 representing interest, by invoking the provisions of Section 40(b) on the following reasoning : "5. Interest paid to partners. Shri M.K. Joshi has obtained Rs. 3 lacs loan from Standard Chartered Bank during the asst. yr. 1991-92. This loan was taken in the individual capacity of Shri M.K. Joshi, by pledging his shares and the shares belonging to some of his family members. The loan was sanctioned by the Standard Chartered Bank in the name of Shri M.K. Joshi. As a partner of the firm, Shri M.K. Joshi, advanced this amount of Rs. 3 lacs to M/s Kamlashankar P. Joshi & Co., without charging any interest. The liability to pay the...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Kamlashankar P. Joshi and Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. In this appeal by the department, objection is taken to the decision of the CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs.52,762 made by invoking the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act.2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in imported as well as indigenous bearings. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.52,762 representing interest, by invoking the provisions of section 40(6) on the following reasoning : "5. Interest paid to partners.--Shri M.K. Joshi has obtained Rs.3lacs loan from Standard Chartered Bank during the assessment year 1991-92. This loan was taken in the individual capacity of Shri M.K. Joshi, by pledging his shares and the shares belonging to some of his family members. The loan was sanctioned by the Standard Chartered Bank in the name of Shri M.K. Joshi. As a partner of the firm, Shri M.K. Joshi, advanced this amount of Rs.3lacs to M/s. Kamlashankar P. Joshi & Co., without charging any int...

Late Shri G.S. Kamath Through Lr Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. All the ten appeals are by the assessee and pertain to asst. yrs.1984-85, 1985-86 and 1988-89. The first set of appeals i.e. 965 to 967/Bom/1993, is directed against the combined order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 8th July, 1991, and pertains to the quantum of assessment made under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act). Second set of appeals, i.e. ITA Nos. 786 to 788/Bom/1994 is directed against three separate orders of the learned CIT(A) all dt. 29th December, 1993, and pertains to penalties levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the three years under consideration. The third is a lone appeal, i.e. ITA No. 5916/Bom/1995 directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 13th January, 1995, and pertains to the quantum of assessment for asst. yr. 1988-89. The final set is of three appeals, i.e. ITA Nos. 5958 to 5960/Bom/1996, and is directed against the combined order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 23rd May, 1996, for the three years concerned. This set of appeals is again...