Mumbai Court September 2004 Judgments

Amol Narayan Wakkar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR16; 2005(2)BomCR853; 2005(1)MhLj798

A.P. Shah, J.1. These petitions under Article 226 challenge a common order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Scheduled Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane dated 11th June, 2004 invalidating the caste certificates of almost 200 persons including the petitioners which certificates certified them as belonging to the 'Thakar' Scheduled Tribe falling under Entry 44 of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976. The 200 persons were seeking caste validity certificates for diverse purposes, including admission to professional courses, seeking employment or promotion in government and semi-government bodies and corporations etc. There is no dispute that all of the applicants belong to the 'Thakar' community. This is borne out by the very first sentence of the impugned order, which states that the applicants are all Thakars from Sindhudurg (erstwhile Ratnagiri) district. The Scrutiny Committee however, relying upon certain passages from R. E. Ethoven's 'T...

Sarvari Ansari Vs. A.N. Roy and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ1630; 2005(1)MhLj1079

Ranjana Desai, J. 1. The petitioner is mother of one Anwar Farooque Ansari @ Anwar Butter @, Bakeriwala. She has challenged in this petition order dated 31st March, 2004, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ('the said' Act' for short) whereunder the said Anwar Farooque Ansari @ Anwar Butter @, Bakeriwala ('the detenu' for convenience) is detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention, ground of detention, and material in support thereof were served on the detenu on 1-4-2004.2. The order of detention is based on one case being C.R. No. 320/2003 and two in-camera statements (1) dated 4-2-2004 and (2) dated 5-2-2004. We have heard Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner at some length.3. Mr. Tripathi challenged the impu...

Sham Shankar Kankaria Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ502

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. All these appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 6th February, 1993 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions case No. 126 of 1992 whereby the accused No. 1 therein being convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) of Indian Penal Code and being sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and the accused Nos. 2 to 6 being convicted for the offence under Section 325 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and each of them being sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and further the accused Nos. 1 to 6 being also convicted for the offence under Section 342 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and each of them being sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default t...

The Executive Engineer, Sangli Irrigation Division Vs. Pandurang Vishn ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR712

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Petition has bean preferred by the Executive Engineer, Sangli Irrigation Division, challenging the Award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages to the workmen. A further direction has been given that all the workmen were entitled to the benefits of the Kalelkar Award in respect of pension, gratuity and other legal benefits. The Labour Court directed the Petitioner to extend retiral benefits to one of the workman in Reference (IDA) No. 40 of 1991 as he had retired during the pendency of the Reference.2. The facts in the present case are similar to the facts narrated in Writ Petition No. 2699 of 1993. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner is the same as made in that Petition. The main ground of challenge is that the Labour Court has found that there is a breach of Section 25F and Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, although, according to the Petitioners, the present termination of services was ...

Su-vi Pharmaceuticals and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The issue involved in this appeal is about availability of modvat credit on capital goods.3. The appellant unit is a manufacturer of various Organic Chemicals, failing under Ch 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee has opted for modvat facility under self-removal procedure as applicable to them. Assessee has filed the declaration under Rule 57T (10) of Central Excise Rules for availability of modvat credit and capital goods at serial No. 12 viz "Bourdon Sensing Pressure Gauge 34 nos" and serial No. 13 viz, Reciprocating type Refrigeration equipment". Show cause notice was issued informing that the assessee was not entitled for modvat credit as the goods do not fall within the definition of capital goods.4. After due enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs, Solapur passed an order disallowing modvat credit and confirming the demand of Rs. 48073.00 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 57U of Central Excise Rule. An am...

Tivoli Investment and Trading Co. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)1SOT150(Mum.)

By this Miscellaneous Petition, the assessee claims that mistakes have crept into the order of the Tribunal in ITA 3269/ Bom/1993 and 3009/Bom./1994, dated 30-6-2003 and requests that the mistakes may appropriately be rectified either by recalling the order or otherwise.We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. We have also considered the written submissinos. The question posed before the Tribunal was whether the revenue authorities were correct in ascertaining the ALV for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. If there is no rent paid and in lieu of rent excessive deposit is being made, whether usufructus of the said deposit can be construed to be rent. After considering the factual details, Tribunal treated the usufructus of the deposit as rent for the user of the property. Tribunal considered the scheme of section 23 of the Act. It is imperative on the part of the assessing officer to first compute the value of the ...

Jagdishprasad M. Joshi Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Mum.)924

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1997-98. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXXIX, Mumbai, which is dated the 14th March, 2001, and arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee-company is carrying on the business of perfumery at Silvassa. The assessee is an eligible unit to claim 100 per cent deduction of its profit under Section 80-IA for the reason that it is situated in the notified area.3. In computing its taxable income, the assessee has claimed full deduction of its profit from taxation. The profit of the assessee has been worked out after taking into consideration a sum of Rs. 32,64,044 as part of assessee's business income. This amount, in fact, represented the interest received by the assessee during the previous year from various fixed deposits made with banks. The AO held that this interest income, therefore, would not come under the head "business income". He, th...

Reliance Consolidated Vs. Acwt [Alongwith Wealth Tax Appeal

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)92ITD394(Mum.)

1. The common effective grounds raised in these appeals, are as follows: 1. The learned CWT (A) erred in confirming the value of immovable properties at Rs. 8,06,58,346/- as against Rs. 3,91,57,207/- (in ITA No. 361/M/2000) and Rs. 3,89,40,727/- as against Rs. 2,34,09,276/- (in ITA No. 360/M/2000), returned by the appellants, respectively. 2. The learned CWT (A) erred in holding that the value of immovable property shall be increased by 15% of the deposit received by the appellants as per Schedule III, Part B, Clause 5 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.3. The assessee-company had given its property on leave and license to another company. Reliance Petro Chemicals Ltd.. after having given to various intermediary tenants. Alone with the said leave and license agreement, another agreement was entered into, as per which, an option for provisional pre-emptory purchase was kept for the licensee, provided the licensee kept certain deposit with the assessee. A reduction in the price was to be given...

Tracstar Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy Cwt

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)1SOT115(Mum.)

These appeals are by the assessee and pertains to assessment years 1998-99,1999-2000 and 2000-01. Since common grounds are involved in all these appeals, we dispose of the appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.The common grounds urged by the assessee for all the years reads as under: "1. That the learned CWT (A) ought to have accepted the claim of the assessee that the two flats are used for the purpose of business of assessee and consequently not chargeable to wealth tax; 2. That immovable property belong NCPA Flat and Embassy Flat are not assets chargeable to tax within the meaning of provisions of section 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957; 3. The assessment to wealth tax in respect of value of NCPA Flat and Embassy Flat is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive." The facts briefly are as under. Assessee filed the original return on 20-3-2002 declaring net wealth at Rs. 4,86,400 for the assessment year 1998-99, Rs. 5,52,600 for assessment year 1999-2000 and Rs. ...

Gammon India Ltd. Vs. AshwIn Daftary and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR31; 2005(2)BomCR833; 2005(2)MhLj50

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocate for the parties. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 7th February, 2001 passed in Int. Notice No. 219 of 2001 in R. A. E. Suit No. 342 of 1978 by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. By the impugned Order, the application for amendment to the plaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on three grounds. Firstly that the recording of evidence of the petitioner/original plaintiff had been already concluded on 7th December, 2000. Secondly that the particulars which are sought to be disclosed cannot be allowed in view of the provisions of law comprised Under Order VI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thirdly that there is unsatisfactory delay in filing the application for amendment to the plaint.3. Upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the suit was filed for eviction of t...