Mumbai Court February 2003 Judgments

Volition Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Madhuri Jitendra Mashroo and Et ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom360; 2003(5)BomCR262

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. The plaintiff, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 has filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 24th July, 2002, alternatively and/or for damages to the tune of Rs. 15 Crores as set out in the particulars of claim with interest. The plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration that the termination of the aforesaid agreement viz., the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24th July, 2002 is illegal, void and contrary to the terms of the contract and law. The plaintiffs have further sought declaration that the said agreement is valid, subsisting and binding on the defendants. There are other incidental prayers including the interim reliefs that have been prayed for by the plaintiffs, 2. In the present notice of motion, the plaintiffs have prayed for appointment of Court Receiver for the suit property and also an injunction against the defendants from creating any third party interest of any nature in t...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pandurang Dayaram Talmale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Bom)625; 2003(4)MhLj86

V.C. Daga, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue challenging the judgment and order dated 11-4-2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur ('the Tribunal' for short) in ITA No. 358/Nag./96, for the Assessment Year 1990-91 giving rise to the following substantial question of law.SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAWWhether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing that the cash seized be adjusted towards the advance tax liability of the assessee as on 30-3-1990 and work out fresh interest chargeable under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? THE FACTS2. Brief facts pertaining to the case, are as under :--The respondent-assessee is an individual. He is also, Karta of HUF. He is separately assessed to Income tax. The assessee is the head of the family. The assessee had furnished returns on 27-2-1990 declaring total income at Rs. 12,87,470/-. The sources of the income shown ...

Mohan Parmanand Khatri Vs. Shri M.G. Ingle,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ1017; 2004(1)MhLj524

L.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard.2. Shri Manoj Mohite submitted that the police officer concerned was very much under the thumb of one Gajwani who was an anti-social element and on account of the said Gajwani, PSI Khopade initiated the said chapter proceedings. In support of his contention, Shri Manoj Mohite read out the complainant which was mae by him to the Commissioner of Police, Thane District, Thane on 17.2.1998 wherein specific allegations were made against Shri Khopade in context with the said Gajwani and the chapter case which was to be initiated against the present petitioner.3. Shri Manoj Mohite submitted that in the notice which has been issued to the present petitioner in view of Section 111 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code for convenience), it ha been mentioned that two non-cognizable complaints were registered against the petitioner, one bearing no. 594/97 which was connected with offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 pertain...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vidya Vikas Vihar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Bom)446; [2004]265ITR489(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard finally by consent of parties. In this batch of six appeals filed at the instance of the Revenue, the following common reframed substantial question of law with respect to the scope of Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act'), arises for consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that income of M/s. Vidya Vikas Vihar, Nagpur, is exempt under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the relevant years involved in the appeals ?'2. The facts :The Vidya Vikas Vihar, Nagpur, is a registered society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and it is engaged in imparting technical education to the students. The said institute is being run on no grant-in-aid basis. The said institute is imparting training in the discipline of engineering technology. The dominant object of the respondent educational institution is to open and run college of polytechnic ...

Safia Noor Mohd. Mujawar and ors. Vs. Nalini Shingote and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003ACJ751

C.K. Thakker, C.J. and D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admitted. Mr. R.M. Patne, Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 3, State of Maharashtra. In our opinion, notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not necessary. The matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. This appeal is filed against an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alibaug, on 4.1.2000 and confirmed by the learned single Judge on 16.3.2002 in Writ Petition No. 5714 of 2001.3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alibaug, passed an order on 4.1.2000 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') under no fault liability, awarding an amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000. It was, however, ordered that out of amount of Rs. 50,000, Rs. 10,000 be paid to the claimant-appellant No. 1, and remaining Rs. 40,000 be ordered to be invested.4. Being aggrieved by that part of the order, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No. 5...

Cit Vs. Pandurang Dayaram Talmale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN193(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J. This appeal is at the instance of the revenue challenging the judgment and order dated 11-4-2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in ITA No. 358/Nag./96, for the assessment year 1990-91 giving rise to the following substantial question of law:'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing that the cash seized be adjusted towards the advance tax liability of the assessee as on 30-3-1990 and work out fresh interest chargeable under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961'Facts2. Brief facts pertaining to the case, are as under:The respondent-assessee is an individual. He is also karta of HUF He is separately assessed to income-tax. The assessee is the head of the family. The assessee had furnished returns on 27-2-1990 declaring total income at Rs. 12,87,470. The sources of the income shown were share income from M/...

Monitex Dye Prints Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 96,309/- and equal penalty. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the ground that the applicant by underdeclaring the value of the fabrics tat it processed short paid duty on these fabrics.2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented and requests decision after considering the submissions tat it has filed. We have read these submissions and heard the departmental representative.Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. v. CCE 2000 (122) ELT 45 to say that the extended period of limitation which covers the entire demand in the case before us, cannot be invoked in a situation in which the processor has relied upon the data relating to the value given to him by the supplier of grey fabrics which was to be processed. We prima facie however find in this case that this was not so. Rajan Kapoor, a partner of the applicant, in his statement had admitted that the applicant had not insisted for declaration of each lot of grey fabr...

Transcab International Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT668Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri. J. N. Pikle, learned Advocate for the appellant states that appellant is a small-scale unit not having SSI registration. The factory has been closed and subsequently shifted to Bangalore. As such, order-in-appeal dated 15-3-1999 was received by the appellants only on 13-3-2002. He pleads that the appeal has been filed within time on 14th May, 2002. Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Jt. C.D.R. raises preliminary objection that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground of time bar. However, he is not able to produce any postal record or any other proof of delivery of the order-in-appeal to the appellants before 13-3-2002.2. The leaned Advocate states that Notification No. 176/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 was amended by Notification No. 56/92-C.E., dated 31-3-92 debarring unregistered small-scale units from availing exemption under Notification No. 175/86. However, a further amendment by Notification No. 67/92-C.E., dated 22-5-92 allowed the exemption for unregistered units till 31-3-93. He ...

The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai Vs. Satyaprakash Laxmisingh an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom311; 2003(2)ALLMR475; 2003(4)BomCR60; 2003(2)MhLj639

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By consent, heard finally.2. Respondents in this appeal are the owners of properties bearing parts of C.T.S. Nos. 1381 and 1392 Off. S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the suit properties.). The tenants/occupiers of suit properties have stables/dairy farms therein. There is some disputes between the respondents and tenants/occupiers running the diary farms and I am informed at the bar that the tenants/occupiers have filed suits/proceedings against the respondents in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. However, no material is available before this court regarding the nature of the disputes and the proceedings.3. The respondents had sunk some borewells in the suit properties. The exact numbers of the bore wells is not admitted. According to the respondents, there were only 12 borewells while according to the appellants, there were 19 borewells. It is admitted that the respondents had not taken permission of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mu...

Universal Trades Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR911; 2003(4)BomCR578; 2003(89)ECC56; 2003(156)ELT321(Bom); 2003(2)MhLj557

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the recorded magnetic tapes in spools/pancakes are liable to excise duty even though the same are not marketable and even if excisable, whether they are covered by exemption Notification issued from time-to-time?2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present petition are as follows : The petitioners inter alia manufacture pre-recorded cassette tapes. The petitioners purchase magnetic tapes in spools falling under the erstwhile Tariff Item 59(1) of the Central Excise Tariff ('CET' for short). On recording the magnetic tapes in spools/pancakes they were classifiable under Tariff Item 59(2) of the CET. Thereafter, the magnetic tapes are cut to size and fixed in the audio cassette tapes. This sound recorded cassette tapes were classifiable under Tariff Item 59(4) of the CET. Thus, under the CET, unrecorded magnetic tapes in spools/pancakes were classifiable under 59(1) of CET and so...