Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments
Chotelal Gajanan Khole Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR285
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent/Corporation on 29th January, 2004 on the grounds that (i) the action is mala fide as the said order is passed during the pendency Of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order imposing punishment in the form of permanent withholding increment for one year; (ii) that certain documents, which were asked for the furnished to the petitioner in the course of inquiry; (iii) that the petitioner was denied promotional opportunity inspite of the fact that the petitioner was due for promotion in the year 1996 as well as in the year 2003. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, reported in : (2001)IILLJ1140SC , in Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripa...
Tag this Judgment!State Transport Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Shankar Gopal Pagi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ80Bom
1. Admit. Respondent No. 1 waives services. On the request of counsel for the appellant names of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are deleted. Heard counsel for the appellant and respondent who is appearing in person.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3683 of 1996 dated July 9, 2004. By this order the learned single Judge set aside the orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court and remanded the matter to the Labour Court to be decided afresh in accordance with law. The learned single Judge further directed that the appellant bank will have to prove the misconduct alleged against the respondent workman by leading evidence before the Labour Court and after such evidence is led the Labour Court will have to consider whether the punishment of dismissal was proper.3. The appellant is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is inter alia engaged in the busines...
Tag this Judgment!Grindwell Norton Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Mumbai)389
ORDERMukul Shrawat, J.M.This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) XXIII, Mumbai, dated 6-8-1998 for the assessment year 1992-93. At the outset, learned authorised representative, Shri Golvala, has informed that the appellant is not interested to adjudicate ground No. 1 (wrongly numbered 2); therefore, the same is dismissed being not pressed. Rest of the grounds are in respect of confirmation of addition of Rs. 25,07,833 being the amount of advance written off.2. The following advances were written off by the appellant :(i) Advanced to International Power Semi Conductors Ltd.Rs. 21,88,243(ii) Advanced to Siltronics (Ind) Ltd.Rs. 3,19,590 Rs. 25,07,833It was observed by the revenue authorities that M/s. International Power Semi Conductors Ltd. was incorporated on 14-4-1975 and it was engaged in the business of manufacture of various types of semi-conductor devices and it was a 100 per cent export-oriented unit. This company was taken over ...
Tag this Judgment!Savani Financials Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)1SOT111(Mum.)
These three appeals are filed by the assessee and are directed against the order dated 10-3-2001 passed by the CIT (A), in the matter of order under section 201 read with section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 passed by the Income Tax Officer, TDS II(3), Mumbai.All these appeals were heard together and these appeals involve a common issue. As a matter of convenience, therefore, all three appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.The only grievance raised in all the three appeals is that the CIT (A) erred in upholding demand raised on the assessee under section 201 read with section 192 in respect of conveyance allowance paid to the employees.The undisputed material facts are like this. The assessee employer has paid conveyance allowance to a number of employees to meet the cost of travelling from residence to place of work, and vice versa The assessing officer (TDS), while scrutinizing the TDS return filed...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Balkrishna R. Naik Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)1SOT177(Mum.)
This appeal by assessee for assessment year 1996-97 is directed against the order of CIT (A), Mumbai dated 14-9-1999.We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the records.The sole substantive ground raised by the assessee-appellant is as under : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Jt., Spl. Range20, Mumbai, erred in: (a) adopting a method, which is contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while calculating income from house property at 'Sea Lords', Cuffe Parade, Mumbai.(b) not allowing, the deduction for municipal taxes, insurance premium and ground rent paid.(c) disallowing the loss of Rs. 55,130 from the above referred property." The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a co-owner of the house property being flat No. 4 at Sea Lords, Cuffee Parade, Colaba, Mumbai with four other co-owners; The assessee's share in the said house property, which is occupied by co-owners, is at 22.62%. The assessee, in working out...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rakhamabat Annappa Gurav Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR590; 2004(4)MhLj759
S.U. Kamdar, J. 1. The petitioner in the present petition is seeking a direction from this Court that the petitioner should be granted freedom fighters pension and denial thereof by the respondent by their order dated 29.1.2003 is illegal and therefore should be quashed and set aside. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under :-2. The petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter because of her participation in Quit India Movement in the year 1942. It is the further case of the petitioner that she was also arrested on 11.7.1945.3. On 15.1.1985, the petitioner made an application for grant of freedom fighter's pension on the ground that she has participated in the Quit India Movement in the year 1942 and was arrested on 11.7.1945 and was released on 2.2.1946. On 16.1.1995, a Retired Police Inspector issued a certificate that on 11.7.1945 the petitioner was arrested. On 1.5.1995, the petitioner once again addressed another letter to District Collector, Sangli requesting him...
Tag this Judgment!Netaji Pratisthan Vs. Government of Maharashtra, Ministry of Urban Dev ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Bom471; 2004(4)ALLMR567; 2004(6)BomCR47; 2004(4)MhLj1038
Dalveer Bhandari, C.J.1. The petitioner, Netaji Pratisthan, is a social welfare organisation registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The petitioner, amongst its activities, takes up issues such as social health, sanitary problems, etc. with Municipal Authorities, State Governments, etc.2. The petitioner has instituted the present petition as a public interest litigation for safeguarding the environmental problems and health of residents of Wanwadi and Kondhwa areas for preventing the use of the residential area by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for using their premises for storing, curing or treating/tanning, etc. of animal hides and wastes.3. According to the petitioner, tanneries are located at S. No. 86-A at Wanwadi. The residents in the adjoining areas of these tanneries complained of bad odour to the municipal authorities by sending representations. The Pune Municipal Corporation, respondent No. 3, on receipt of complaints from the residents of the said areas depu...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Khema Rathod Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ823; 2004(4)MhLj1001
S.S. Parkar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition his detention under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons (Amendment) Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MPDA Act').2. . The order of detention was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City on 18/12/2003 pursuant to which the detenu was taken into detention on 20th December 2003. The detention order has been passed on the basis of five CRs. and three in-camera statements. The petitioner is alleged to be a bootlegger and carrying on his activity as manufacturer of illicit liquor in respect of which crimes were registered against him by the police.3. In the grounds of detention dated 18/12/2003 it is mentioned that the past criminal record of the petitioner shows that he had committed offences under the provisions of the Prohibition Act such as distilling, manufacturing and selling illicit liquor and has thereby enda...
Tag this Judgment!Dilawarkhan Kadarkhan Pathan Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR895
Sinha D.D., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The Counsel for the petitioner states that father of the petitioner was working as Watchman in the employment of respondent-Board. The father of the petitioner underwent an operation sometime before March, 1984 and at later point of time, applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds. It is submitted that vide letter dated 13-3-1984, the father of the petitioner was asked to appear before the Medical Officer, Power Station Dispensary, Khaperkheda for medical examination, and after having examined the father of the petitioner, the concerned Medical Officer, certified that the father of petitioner was not mentally and physically fit to work as Watchman and, therefore, recommended the application made by the father of the petitioner for voluntary retirement on medical grounds. It is submitted that at later point of time, the respondent No. 2 issued a communication to the Stores Officer, Major Stores, B. MSEB, Khaperkheda,...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal Narsingdas Gattani Vs. Daulat S/O Sripat Shewale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR464
A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is second appeal filed by the original plaintiffs,2. The plaintiff filed a Special Civil Suit No. 23 of 1982 for specific performance of contract and in the alternative for refund of consideration. The defendant No. 1 is the owner and possessor of a Touring Cinema Talkies which comprises of machines such as Projector, Amplifier and other equipments such as curtain, tent of cinema, loud speaker, almirah for booking house all in running condition, necessary for running Touring Cinema Talkies. On 14.3.1981, the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs and promised to sell the suit property. Under the agreement, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were to share the agreed consideration of Rs. 40.000/- to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- by the defendant No. 2 and Rs. 4.000/- by the defendant No. 3. The plaintiff had to pay Rs. 25,000/- in cash at the time of agreement and a sum of Rs. 5.000/- was to be paid at the time of delivery of possession to the def...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »