Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Shri Mahadeo Nathaji Newase Vs. Shri Shankar Kirshna Varpe (Since Dece ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR766; 2005(1)BomCR846

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated March 1, 1988 in Revision No. MRT. NS.-IX-6 of 1984 (TEN.B.226 of 1984) Pune. Briefly stated, the lands in question are bearing Gat No.1226-A, admeasuring 2 acres and Gat No. 1226-B, admeasuring 2 acres 37 gunthas at Karanjkhop, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara. The Respondent are the landlords in respect of the said lands. The Petitioner claims to be the tenant in lawful cultivation of the suit lands prior to tillers day i.e. 1st April 1957. The petitioner had filed the application under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for declaration that he was tenant in respect of the suit lands. Suffice it to observe that the said proceedings concluded in favour of the Petitioner by holding that the Petitioner was tenant in respect of the suit lands prior to 1st April 1957. That issue was ta...

Sunderabai Maroti Metkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR751; 2005(1)BomCR913

Marlapalle B.H., J.1. Agricultural land, admeasuring 1 Hectare and 97 Ares in Survey No. 12/1 of village Suregaon in Hingoli district was originally owned by one Shri Subhan who was a tribal. He sold, out of the said total holding, land to the extent of 1 Hectare [2 Acres and 20 Gunthas] to one Shri Vishwanath s/o Satawappa Kasar, the present respondent No. 4, by a registered sale-deed dated 18th July, 1978 and bearing No. 1806. The said transferee belonged to 'Kasar' caste and he was not a tribal. By sale-deed dated 12 the September, 1979, registered under No. 2219, the respondent No. 4 sold the same land to the present petitioner, who is a tribal. It is also not in dispute that when the transfer was effected pursuant to the sale-deed dated 18th July, 1978 and subsequently on 12th September, 1979 there was no permission obtained, in advance, from the Collector by either of the parties.2. The Additional Tahsildar, therefore, initiated suo motu inquiry under Section 36(A) of the Maharas...

H.P. Dagha and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants is a licensed Custom House Agent (CHA), who has been imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh under the provisions of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The Bill of Entry for clearance of defective Cold rolled sheets on behalf of M/s Maharashtra Tubes Ltd was filed. Before the goods could be assessed, the importers gave the CHA another invoice with the same invoice number but indicated a tower value and an explanation that the quality of goods imported was inferior and hence there was a renegotiated price of $290 p.m.t from $ 410 p.m.t as indicated earlier.CHA corrected the value as declared as instructed by the imported in the Bill of Entry. Subsequently, this Bill of Entry was permitted to be converted into an Into Bond Bill of Entry and thereafter again into home consumption Bill of Entry. The value declaration made was not objected to by the proper officer. The adjudicator found the appellant to be liable for penalty for abating the misdeclar...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Vinit International

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing these applications, filed by Revenue and the importers, against the very said order, and considering the submissions, it is felt that the issue revolves in a narrow compass and can be decided at this stage. Therefore, after waiver of pre deposit, the appeals are taken up for final disposal.2. (a) The appellants had imported consignments which were declared in the Bill of Entry as "Secondary defective Stainless Steel Welded Pipes Grade 304". On examination, the officers of Customs in the Docks found the goods to be having no marking and they appeared to be old and used welded pipe non magnetic. For the test the matter was referred to the Department of Metallurgical Engineering, IIT, Bombay was regarding testing of Secondary defective Stainless Steel welded sheets. They could not test the same. M/s GeoChem Laboratories Pvt Ltd's test report has been relied, it has the following remarks noted: "B. PIT MARKS OBSERVED ON SURFACE MAY BE CONSIDER AS SECONDARY, DEFECTIVE STAI...

Daylight Plastic Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT469Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this appeal is the classification of two items (i) 'Frizbees', and (ii) 'Plastic Ball pen stands'.2. After hearing both sides, and considering the material on record, it is found that: a) 'Frizbee' is a proprietary name for a concave plastic disc which spins when thrown into the air and is used in catching game. The object of the game is simply for one player to toss the Frisbee, or disk, into the air and try to keep it from his opponent's grasp. Frisbees are plastic dishes which perform all manner of gyrations when tossed in the air. The frizbee is a plastic disc about the size of a frying pan that in the hands of the experts boomerangs; as per Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition Volume VI published in 1989, relied upon by the appellants. Considering this aspect of the product under dispute and that Heading 95.06 covers other articles and equipments including 'boomerangs'' as per the HSN Notes, which is para materia 950% of Central Excise Tariff Act, 198...

Jcit Vs. Shri Govind Rohira Alias Srichand

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Mum.)346

1. In this appeal by the revenue the only effective ground urged is directed against the order of the CIT (A) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 54F of the I.T.Act, 1961 to an amount of Rs. 26,98,983/-.2. The grievance of the revenue is that the benefit under Section 54F could be made applicable only to assessee and the benefit should not been extended to minor. It is the case of the revenue that the CIT (A) ignored the fact that the assessee has been defined in Section 2(7) of the I.T.Act to mean a person by whom any tax or any other sum of money is payable under the Act. In the case of the minor, no tax is payable as his entire income is clubbed with that of the other person. The facts leading to the dispute briefly is as under.3. In this case, the assessee has filed return by declaring income of Rs. 49,28,997/- on 30-8-1995. The assessee is an individual, derived income during the year from the property concerned M/s.Fine Food, interest from private...

Joint Cit Vs. Govind Rohira Alias Srichand

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)95ITD77(Mum.)

In this appeal by the revenue the only effective ground urged is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to an amount of Rs. 26,98,983.The grievance of the revenue is that the benefit under section 54F could be made applicable only to assessee and the benefit should not been extended to minor. It is the case of the revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) ignored the fact that the assessee has been defined in section 2(7) of the Income Tax Act to mean a person by whom any tax or any other sum of money is payable under the Act. In the case of the minor, no tax is payable as his entire income is clubbed with that of the other person. The facts leading to the dispute briefly is as under.In this case, the assessee has filed return by declaring income of Rs. 49,28,997 on 30-8-1995. The assessee is an individual, derived income during the year from the property concerned M/s. ...

Rubab M. Kazerani Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Mum.)698

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order under Section 263 of the Act made by the learned CIT, Mumbai City-XIII, Mumbai, on 28th Feb., 2001, in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) made by the AO on 10th Dec., 1998, for asst. Yr. 1996-97.2. Facts of the case leading to this appeal, briefly, are that the assessee is a spinster lady of more than 60 years of age. She received by way of gift from her late father in September, 1955, a property known as "Hepburn Hall" (hereinafter called "The property"), situated at Convent Road in Bangalore. This property had been purchased by her father in the year 1921. The military authorities requisitioned the property during the war time and the same was derequisitioned in 1992.The assessee was a resident of Bombay. On 8th June, 1995, she executed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with one Mr. Shahrooq Ali Khan of Bangalore through her general power of attorney holder, Mr. Sameer A.Khan...

Mrs. Prajakta George RobIn Vs. Mr. George Robin

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR16

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel appearing for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.3. As short question is involved, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.4. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kalyan dated March 23, 2004 below Exhibit 13 in Civil M.A. No. 80 of 2003. The Respondent husband filed said Civil M.A. No. 80 of 2003 dated 23rd November 2003 for custody of the minor child Angelia, who was, at the relevant time, in the custody of the Petitioner mother at Thane. The Petitioner and Respondent, after marriage, stayed together at Byculla, from where they were required to shift to Kalyan and have purchased flat at Kalyan. The Petitioner, however, filed application Exhibit 13 before the Trial Court, questioning the jurisdiction of the Court at Kalyan to proceed with the hearing of the proceedings on the ground that the Petitioner alon...

Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Sridhar Jagannath Nerurkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR128; 2005(1)BomCR839; 2005(1)MhLj1097

D.G. Karnik, J.1. The question of law that arise for determination in this Civil Revision Application is:(i) Whether during the pendency of a suit filed by a landlord for eviction of a tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Bombay Rent Act) the landlord can file a second suit for eviction under the general law (Transfer of Property Act, 1882) against a tenant who has ceased to have protection of a Rent Act by reason of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ?The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid questions are stated below:2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit) against the applicant (hereinafter also referred to as the tenant) for eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground that he required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use and occupation and that the tenant was a defaulter in payme...