Mumbai Court April 2002 Judgments

Gouri Food Products Vs. Priya Trading Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR218; 2002(4)MhLj880

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Lokhande, learned Advocate, holding for Mr. Rohit Deo, counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. The applicant has assailed the order, dated 8-8-1995, passed below Exh. 23 in Regular Civil Suit No. 850 of 1993, by the Third Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagpur, whereby the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 18, Civil Procedure Code, seeking a direction to the defendant to begin evidence first came to be rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is the plaintiff and has filed a Regular Civil Suit for recovery of money, i.e., amount of Rs. 24,608.91. It is the case of the plaintiff that the present respondent (defendant), vide agreement, dated 15-3-1992, accepted that an amount of Rs. 42,506.91 was due and payable by him and, in fact, pursuant to the said agreement, also paid an amount of Rs. 21,000.00. The plaintiff did not, however, receive the balance amount and hence was constrained...

Shobha Vijayrao Pujari Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative So ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR535

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. The respondent No. 5 is a Co-operative Housing Society and respondent No. 6 was the Chief Promoter of the respondent No. 5 society as well as the Builder. He was also the Chairman of the said society for some time, immediately after registration.3. Initially share Nos. 651 were allotted to Ramlal Damu Patil by the respondent No. 5 society. The said share was transferred in the name of the petitioner and her father-in-law on 16th July, 1992. One flat is allotted to the petitioner. It appears that the respondent No. 5 has borrowed some money from respondent No. 3 Finance Corporation. A notice under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') was issued to the petitioner on 27th December, 1995 alleging that an amount of Rs. 61,903.50 was due. The petitioner replied the said notice on January 4, 1996. It appears that ...

Raymond Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)86ITD791(Mum.)

1. The assessee in these appeals is Raymond Ltd., a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of suitings, engineers' steel files and rasps and cement in India. In order to muster funds for the purpose of putting BD facilities for the production of cold-rolled steel products including sillicon products, the Greenfield Textile project and the normal capital expenditure requirements, the company proposed to issue Global Depositary Receipts (GDRs) in the international market.Two types of GDRs were contemplated--(1) International GDRs which were offered to investors outside the United States of America (USA) and India restricted to offshore transactions, and (2) GDRs under Rule 144A of the Securities Regulations of the USA, offered in the USA to "qualified institutional buyers" (QIBs). The total number of GDRs issued was 37,68,844. The issue price of each GDR was US $ 15.92. Each GDR represented 2 shares of the company of the face value of Rs. 10 per share. Approximately US $58 mi...

Echjay Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)257ITR1(Mum.)

1. These two cross appeals, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VI, Mumbai (S.K. Dasgupta) pertaining to the assessment year 1992-93, are being disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the Revenue, in which the first ground urged reads as under : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the incidental expenses connected to tour should not be included while computing the disallowance under Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules and thereby erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,17,475 made by the Assessing Officer." 3. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the conveyance, telephone and miscellaneous expenses incurred, have to be disallowed under Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in...

AshwIn S. Mehta (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These six appeals filed by the above two assessees pertain to asst.yrs. 1990-91 to 1992-93. As the issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The common issue raised in all the above appeals pertain to the issue of adoption of status as HUF and the assessment of income thereof.3. The appeals are filed later. In the case of Ashwin S. Mehta, the appeals are late by 110 days and in the case of Hitesh Mehta also by 110 days. The learned counsel for the assessees contended that they were members of Harshad Mehta family. The assessees were declared as "notified person" along with other members of the 'family and other entities under the Special Court Act, 1992, on 8th June, 1992. Prior to the notification, they had large infrastructure, qualified staff of about 200 persons and they could avail services of competent professionals. Due to notification and freezing of our bank accounts and multiple raids by Government agencies like CB...

Manjulabai W/O Kisna Gulabe Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)97; (2002)3BOMLR782; 2002(3)MhLj226

V.M. Kanade, J. 1. All these three criminal writ petitions have been sent through jail and in all these three petitions, the petitioners are seeking parole for a period of 4 weeks in order to attend the marriage of Miss Savitri who is the daughter of Manjulabai the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 165/02, sister of Devanand who is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 166/02 and daughter of Kisna who is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 167/02. All these three petitioners are in jail and are convicted for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Their conviction has been confirmed by this Court and also by the Apex Court. The applications made by the petitioners to the Competent Authority, have been rejected on the ground that they are not entitled to get furlough because they have not completed 2 years of sentence as per Rule 3 of the Furlough Rules and on the ground that they are not entitled to...

Sunil Rajaram Ghosalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR189; 2002(4)MhLj170

V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. These petitions are filed by the Police Constables in service of the State of Maharashtra, challenging the action of the State in not appointing the selected candidates such as petitioners to the post of Police Sub-Inspectors. AH these petitions raised identical facts and law and therefore they can be conveniently decided by this common judgment. This judgment shall cover all the cases mentioned in the schedule attached hereto, which shall form part of the judgment.2. Facts stated briefly, giving rise to the present petitions are that several posts of Police Sub-Inspectors were vacant and therefore State of Maharashtra took a decision of filling them up.3. In the cadre of Police Sub-Inspectors, 50% posts are filled up by direct recruitment and out of the remaining 50%, 25% are filled in departmental promotions on the basis of seniority and the remaining 25% are to be filled in by holding a departmental competitive examination from amongst the candidates who are se...

Ellora Furniture and Its Proprietor Narayanbhai Gowardhanbhai Julapara ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)MhLj287

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Since execution proceeding is required to be stayed because of pendency of challenge to rejection of application under Section 47 by judgment debtor, the parties agreed and accordingly the revision petition was finally heard.This revision petition impugns order dated 21-3-2002 passed below Exhibit 47 in Regular Darkhast No. 94/1999 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrirampur.2. In the execution proceeding numbered as Regular Darkhast No. 94/1999, decree for possession passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 366/1985, which was agitated and ultimately confirmed right upto the Supreme Court, is being sought to be executed. After service of notice under Order 21, Rule 22, present revision petitioner/original judgment debtor, on 9-3-2002 filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter-alia, contending that the judgment debtor did not agree to the prayer for possession, except the properties described as 1-A and 1-C in the schedule to the execution ...

Chhaya Namdeorao Binekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR1069; 2003(1)BomCR689; (2003)1BOMLR345; 2003(3)MhLj339

R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard the advocates for the respective parties.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ to quash an order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 31-3-2000, which is annexed at Annexure 'A' to the petition. The petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of a writ, order or direction quashing the order of reversion dated 25-2-2002 issued as a consequence of the invalidation of the petitioner's caste claim and seeking a further direction to the respondents to accommodate the petitioner as belonging to special backward class in the two percent reservation provided as per the terms of the Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995.3. This writ petition was fixed for final hearing on 14-2-2002. It was noticed that one of the points raised in this writ petition was as to whether direction No. 5 as contained in paragraph 13 of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors., reported in : AIR...

Vishal Agencies, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Shashikaladevi W/O Mahend ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR85; (2002)104BOMLR836

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard Shri A.M. Kanade, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.S. Choudhary, learned Counsel i/b Shri A.N. Irapalgire, advocate for the respondent No. 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioners craves leave to delete the respondent No. 2. Leave granted.2. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.3. The respondent is a Co-operative Bank having, amongst others, a branch at Latur. At the request of the petitioners, a cash credit facility with the drawing limit of Rs. Fifteen lacs was granted by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioners on 3rd June, 1997 and the actual cash credit account was opened on 18th June, 1997. Enjoying the said cash credit facility, the petitioners transacted business and borrowed money from the respondent Bank. It is not disputed that till October/November, 1997, the petitioners were regularly transacting business with the respondent No. 1 Bank. In November, 1997 the petitioners stopped operations in the cash credit accoun...