Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Bellary Steels and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Icici Bank Ltd.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC161

1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being, aggrieved by the Order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal-III,- Mumbai on Exhibit No.1 in Original Application No. 212 of 2003. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer appointed receiver with respect to the properties of the appellants as described in Exhibits A 1, A2, A3, B and C annexed to the plaint/original application and further ordered that the receiver to carry out first the inventory and thereafter submit report and thereafter he should proceed for sale of the properties by adopting due procedure for the same. He also directed that the applicant Bank namely the ICICI Bank Limited who is respondent No. 1 herein could appoint any person from the Bank so as to take the possession of the properties for the sale of the properties.2. I have heard Mr. Madkholkar for the appellants and Mr. Sakseria for the Bank. I have gone through the voluminous pro...

Jt. C.i.T., Spl. Range 40 Vs. Smt. Armeda K. Bhaya

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is revenue appeal and assessee's cross objection. Sole ground raised by revenue is as under: "1(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and in facts in directing the A.O. to allow full exemption to the assessee Under Section 54 in as much as in the newly acquired house property the assessee deriving capital gains from the transfer of the old property was only a co-owner and not the full owner. (b) In doing so, the Ld.CIT(A) relied upon facts that were extraneous to the issue under consideration." 2. Brief facts are the assessee is an individual. She sold a property called Barry Villa for Rs. 11 crores, against which the assessee purchased a flat No. H-132, Maker Towers, for Rs. 6,08,15,750. The assessing officer found that in the conveyance the number of purchasers were three, i.e. assessee, her mother and father. AO was of the view that the word 'purchase' is not defined in the I.T. Act and, relying on various observations, held ...

Shri Shyamsunder Amarlal Hotchandani Vs. Smt. Arti @ Sunita Shyamsunde ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom311; II(2004)DMC121; 2004(3)MhLj546

F.I. REBELLO, J.1. The Appellant had filed the petition for decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was the case of the Petitioner that marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized on 11-3-1993. In the petition as presented the Petitioner further averred that he was divorcee when he got married to the Respondent. The marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Rites as both Petitioner and Respondent are Hindu. The Petitioner residence is at A/205, Suryakiran Apartment, Dharampur Cross Road, Valsad (West) in Gujarat State. After the marriage the Petitioner and Respondent went to reside at his house. They stay their as husband and wife together for about a month. At about end of first month of their marriage, according to the Petitioner the Respondent informed him that uncle and aunt who were aged were not keeping good health and as such she would like to go to their house at Dahisar, Mumbai. He therefore brought Respondent at Dahisar on 12-4-1...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Devappa Sidappa Kambale @ Muniv. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004BomCR(Cri)797

R.S. Mohite, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 1987 is filed by the State, seeking to quash and set aside the Judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on 22.1.1987 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1986. The Criminal Revision Application No. 168 of 1987 has been preferred by the original complainant Yashwant Sidgonda Patil against the same Judgment and order. By the impugned Judgment and order, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of all the charges leveled against them.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as appear from record are as under:-(a) That the accused are residents of Gadhinglaj. The family of the complainants also are from the same town. Accused No. 1 Devappa is the father of the accused No. 2 Maruti and accused No. 3 Ramesh. Accused No. 4 Bhairu and accused No. 5 Datta are sons of the sister of accused No. 1 Devappa. Accused No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are close relatives of accused No. 1 Devappa.(b) About 17 to 18 years prior to the incident, father of PW 2 Yashwan...

Environmental Engineer Inc. Vs. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR45; 2004(2)ARBLR503(Bom); 2004(3)MhLj37

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By the present petition the petitioners are challenging the arbitral award dated 25-7-2003 passed by the Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Some of the material facts of the case are as under :--The respondent No. 1 Maharashtra Pollution Control Board invited tenders for the establishment of regional Laboratories at Nagpur and Pune. The petitioner submitted his tender and after negotiations, the same was accepted on 27-4-1994. On 7-5-1994, the respondent issued the acceptance letter. A work order was issued and ultimately the work was carried out and completed by the petitioner. However, in respect of the said work, differences and disputes arose by and between the parties. The petitioner therefore invoked the arbitration agreement between the parties under the tender document. The respondent did not appoint an arbitrator and accordingly the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation A...

Umesh S. Bangara Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Bom)319; [2004]268ITR405(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. Jhaveri, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition and the documents annexed thereto.2. The petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of the provisions of Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act as ultra vires the Constitution. The petitioner also challenges the legality and correctness of the order of the Chief CIT dt. 23rd Sept., 2003.3. The aforesaid challenge arises in the facts and circumstances that we briefly narrate hereinafter.4. The petitioner is proprietor of M/s Unitech Marketing Services and has been providing services to various foreign principals in the field of petrochemical and textile projects. For the asst. yrs. 1993-94 to 1996-97 the petitioner filed returns of income in time. He claimed deductions under Section 80-O of the IT Act on the basis of gross foreign earnings. The said assessment for all the four assessment years was accepted by the concerned AO under Section 143(1) and the intimations were issued...

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Andhra Bank and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC192; 2004(4)BomCR891; 2004(3)MhLj540

ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the summary suit for recovery of money.2. By this chamber summons, a prayer is sought by defendant No. 1 to condone the delay, to deposit a sum of Rs. 6 Lakhs as ordered, in Summons for Judgment No. 702 of 2002. The operative part of the order dated 27-11-2003 is as follows :'2. It is the contention of the defendant No. 1 that there has been a collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 3 and the goods were never delivered. Banks deal, not in the actual goods but in the documents relating to the goods. The documents were in order and they were accepted to be proper by the defendant No. 1 bank. In the circumstances, defendant No. 1 has no bona fide or reasonably triable defence. The defendant No. 1 can only be granted conditional leave to defend the suit. Accordingly, the defendant No. 1 is granted conditional leave to defend the suit subject to its depositing in the court a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (rounded off figure) within a...

Sudhakarrao Shankarrao Sarnaik Vs. Bhanudas N. Deshmukh and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom350

S.T. Kharche, J.1. The short question that arises for determination, in this second appeal is whether the appellant-plaintiff is entitled for the refund of earnest money with interest from the date of the suit till realisation.2. Relevant facts are as under :--The respondent-defendant No. 1 is the owner of agricultural land bearing survey No. 56/7 admeasuring 2.00 acres situated at village Mohaja. He entered into the agreement of sale on 29-9-1979 in favour of the plaintiff and agreed to sale his land for the consideration of Rs. 4,500/-. The Isar Chitthi was also executed though the possession was not delivered. It was agreed that the balance consideration of Rs. 500/- would be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed on or before 30-9-1980. Thereafter, the plaintiff requested the defendant No. 1 to receive the balance about of Rs. 500/- and to execute the sale deed, but in vain. However, the defendant No. 1 sold the same land to the defendant No. 2 by virtue of...

Babasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2004)DMC457

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 78 of 1984 the appellant-original accused was put on trial for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and by his judgment and order dated 19.1.1985 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, convicted the accused for both the offences but sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Code. No separate sentence was imposed for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The said order of conviction and sentence is a matter of challenge in this appeal.2. The prosecution story unfolds as under:The accused was married to Alkabai, daughter of P.W. 3 Shantabai on or about 8.3.1977 when she was a minor (11 or 12 years of age). The accused was having some job at Mira. Both of them are residents of village Athwad in Taluka and District Ahmednagar. About three years after his marriage the accused returned to his village and, therefore, Alkabai started co-habiting with him...

M.i. Quereshi S/O YasIn Mohammad Vs. Khatoonbi Wd/O M.A. Qadar and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR289; 2004(6)BomCR930; 2005(1)MhLj98

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-4-1990 passed by the 7th Additional district Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 677 of 1986 whereby the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 30-9-1986 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division in Special Civil Suit No. 158 of 1984 directing the deceased respondent (whose legal representatives are brought on record during the pendency of the appeal) to deliver possession is set aside.Relevant facts are as under :2. The appellant is original plaintiff No. 2 and he and respondent No. 7 who is original plaintiff No. 1 instituted the suit for possession and also for recovery of license fee in respect of the suit house bearing Corporation No. 257, situated at Sadar Bazaar, Nagpur. The contention of the plaintiff was that they had purchased the suit house from one Dinanath Sharma for...