Mumbai Court September 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gool Noshir Davierwala and ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Konkan Di ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR759; 2003(1)BomCR731; (2003)1BOMLR855; 2003(2)MhLj985
1. Both these petitions can be considered together as they involve common question and pertain to the same property which is the subject matter of these proceedings.2. It is not necessary to elaborate all the events that have given rise to the present proceedings. Suffice it to point out that the Additional Commissioner. Konkan Division, Bombay decided to take suo motu action in respect of the proceedings which was already concluded in favour of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2177 of 1986 in respect of the subject land under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. It is not in dispute that the declaration was made on 29-3-1976 whereas the Commissioner issued notice to the petitioners on 8-7-1985 expressing his mind that he intends to take suo motu action in exercise of the powers under Section 45 of the said Act. The Commissioner proceeded to decide the matter on merits though objection was taken on behalf of the petitioners that the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.M.J. Builders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]262ITR60(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The Department has come in appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as 'the said Act'), against the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated May 30, 2000, cancelling the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, amounting to Rs. 1,83,310.Facts :2. The assessee is a builder. He constructed four (4) buildings consisting of 30 flats at Dahanu. The assessee sold 28 flats. The remaining two flats have been shown by him as a closing stock having an area of 1,073 square feet. The assessee valued the closing stock at Rs. 97,175 at 90.56 per square foot. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that there is under valuation of the closing stock. This has not been challenged by the assessee.3. In its project account, the assessee debited Rs. 2,86,389 on account of the sub-contract for extra work. The Assessing Officer summoned Shri K. K. Patel of Dahanu (alleged sub-contractor) in order to ascertain the genuine...
Videocon International Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Bom)254
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. 2. Petitioners are directed to amend the petition and bring on record A.N. Corporation as respondent No. 5. Leave to amend. Accordingly, amendment should be carried out within one week from the date of the receipt of this order. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this writ petition, M/s Videocon International Ltd. seeks to challenge prohibitory order dt. 14th Dec., 1999, under Section 226(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The Order is directed to Indusind Bank Ltd. Facts 4. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows: 5. M/s Devprayag Properties Ltd. are the assessees under the Act. An amount of Rs. 19.22 crores is due and payable by M/s Devprayag Properties Ltd. to the IT Department. The sister concern of M/s Devprayag Properties Ltd. is A.N. Corporation--newly added respondent No. 5 (formerly known as A.N. Properties). A.N. Properties are the registered holders of 10 lakh shares of Indusind Bank L...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.M.J. Builders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Bom)315
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The Department has come in appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as 'the said Act'), against the judgment and order of the Tribunal dt. 30th May, 2000, cancelling the penalty levied by the AO, amounting to Rs. 1,83,310.Facts2. The assessee is a builder. He constructed four (4) buildings consisting of 30 flats at Dahanu. The assessee sold 28 flats. The remaining two flats have been shown by him as a closing stock having an area of 1,073 sq. ft. The assessee valued the closing stock at Rs. 97,175 at 90.56 per sq. ft. The AO came to the conclusion that there is under valuation of the closing stock. This has not been challenged by the assessee.In its project account, the assesee debited Rs. 2,86,389 on account of the subcontract for extra work. The AO summoned Shri K.K. Patel of Dahanu (alleged sub-contractor) in order to ascertain the genuineness of the claim. He was examined on oath under Section 131. The alleg...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nirmal H. Phopalia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Bom)450; [2003]262ITR522(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Admitted. The respondents waive service. By consent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. This appeal is preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, from and against the order of the Tribunal dated May 4, 2000 vide Appeal No. A 234/Mumbai of 1997 for the block period 1987-88 up to 1997-98. 3. Eight questions have been sought to be raised by the Department, who are the appellants in this appeal. Question No. 1 : During the course of the search, cash was detected amounting to Rs. 1,46,700 out of which, an amount of Rs. 1,10,000 was seized. That amount of Rs. 1,10,000 has been shown as undisclosed income for the assessment year 1997-98 in the block period. The assessee was asked to explain the source of the entire amount of Rs. 1,46,700. In his explanation, the assessee submitted that the cash belonged to a company by the name, Sait Purshottam and Co. It was also submitted that part of the cash was out of the savings and the salary income, which t...
Suhasini Atmaram Parab and ors. Vs. B.H. Khatu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR770; 2003(1)BomCR733
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court, at Bombay in Appeal No. 170 of 1985 on 15-4-1988. Petitioners before this Court are the landlords in respect of premises situate at Ganga Nivas, Ganesh Lane, Lalbaug, Mumbai 12. The predecessor of the petitioners inducted one Ganpat Naik in one room (i.e. the suit premises) out of the three rooms which was in his possession. The said Ganpat Naik later on inducted the respondent No. 1 in the suit premises as a licence; and since he had a subsisting leave and licence agreement on 1-2-1973, became protected by virtue of the amended provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The predecessor of the petitioners however, filed a suit for possession of the suit premises against the original tenant-Ganpat Naik inter alia on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. In that suit, the respondent No. 1 was also impleaded as defendant No. 2 on the assertion that he was the person ...
Kiran Sahadeorao Raoo Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR730; 2003(2)BomCR299
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. This petition is directed against the order dated nil, passed by the respondent No. 2 committee, by which, the Committee has negatived the petitioner's claim that he belongs to 'Halba', Scheduled Tribe.3. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner, by Mr. Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, which deserves acceptance, is non-compliance of Guideline No. 5 laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in : AIR1995SC94 . It is obvious from the report of the Police Vigilance Cell that the cell has made an enquiry only from the entry of school admission register, wherein the caste of petitioner's father is recorded as 'Koshti'. Guideline No. 5, as aforesaid, reads as under:'5. Each directorate should constitute a Vigilance Cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspe...
Hareshkumar Mathuradas Lathia Vs. Abdulkadar HussaIn Ibrahim and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC343; 2003(1)ALLMR272; 2003(2)BomCR634
A.M. Khanwilkar J.1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, for Greater Bombay dated 31-3-1986 in Application No. 834 of 1982. The appellant had filed an application for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident which had occurred on 15-12-1981 while crossing the road. The taxi bearing Registration No. M.R.K. 7134 dashed against him and he was thrown on the hedge at a distance of about 10 to 12 feet. The taxi went towards the left side about 30 to 40 metres and stopped. The appellant had sustained injuries as described in the application. An application was filed claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the ground that the appellant suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the taxi driver. The application was contested only by the insurance company whereas the owner as well as the driver of the vehicle in question did not appear before the Tribunal. The Tribuna...
Vinayak Vidyadayini Trust and anr. Vs. Aruna T. Prabhu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR462; 2002(6)BomCR9; [2002(95)FLR1131]
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. Rule. Rule heard forthwith, by consent.The petitioner No. 1 is a registered Public Trust and Society and is running a recognised and aided private school. The school is a secondary private school. The petitioner No. 1 the trust and the petitioner No. 2, the Head Mistress of the school are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20th July, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal Nos. 73 of 1995 and 119 of 1995 filed by the respondent No. 1, the concerned teacher to challenge the two orders of her termination dated 29th April, 1995 and 1st July, 1995.2. It appears that when the respondent teacher was issued the first order of termination dated 29th April, 1995, she approached the School Tribunal to challenge the said order being illegal and improper. It appears that the School Tribunal granted an ad interim ex parte stay on 8th May, 1995. It further appears that the petitioner after coming to know the order of the School Tribunal...
Western India Automobile Association Vs. General Secretary, Bombay Lab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR677
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner Association is registered under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The petitioner has set out in the petition in detail the services rendered by it. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court given on 6th July, 1995 whereby the Labour Court held that the impugned termination order was not discharge simplicitor but was a punitive order. The Labour Court also decided that the enquiry held by the petitioner was not fair and proper. The reference is pending before the Labour Court for adjudication of the propriety and legality of the impugned order of the termination on merits. 2. It appears that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Labour Court framed three issues which were answered as stated hereinbefore. It further appears that as a sequential of the enquiry having not been held fair and proper, the petitioner was put at the stage of adducing evidence before the L...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »