Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Minguel Chandra Pais and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR153; (2006)200CTR(Bom)152; [2006]282ITR618(Bom)

Britto N.R., J.1. These appeals filed by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were admitted on a substantial question of law which reads as follows :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee's land could be termed as agricultural land?'2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of both the appeals. The respondents in both the appeals are the assesses-husband and wife and though they are non-resident Indians from the year 1983 or thereabout they are governed by the regime of communion of assets as in force in this State. In May, 1995 they sold their ancestral property bearing Survey Nos. 103/1 and 102/4 admeasuring about 65,282 sq. metres to M/s. Sunset Resort Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 2,88,10,600/- which works out to a price of Rs. 441.33 per sq.m. The assessees did not declare capital gains on the sale of the said property and therefore a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to them and in reply to the said no...

Sunil Ramdas Kotkar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR143; 2005(4)BomCR117; 2005(4)MhLj375

NAIK A.B., J.1. Heard respective Counsel.2. By this order, we propose to dispose of this writ petition finally, at the stage of motion hearing, in view of the order passed by this Court on 3rd November, 2004 whereby, our Brothers; Zoting and Deshpande, JJ, have passed the following order :'Parties are put on notice that, the matter will be decided at the admission stage after vacation.'In view of this, we heard this writ petition on 28th February, 2005 at length, which remained part heard. On 1st March, 2005 we completed the hearing and the matter was posted for judgment.3. By this petition, as many as nine petitioners are seeking following reliefs:'(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 19-5-2004 passed by the respondent No. 3 appointing the respondent No. 4 as a Leader of Opposition in respondent No. 2 Corporation and for that purpose issue necessary orders.(C) Issue writ of mandamus or directio...

Vishwas Shankarrao Joshi Vs. Bank of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR339; 2005(5)BomCR419; [2006(107)FLR52]; (2005)IIILLJ54Bom; 2005(3)MhLj640

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The question raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is where there is an Award directing reinstatement of a workman is passed by Labour Court, which is being challenged by way of writ petition in High Court, and if such workman has not been employed in any establishment during such period, whether he could be denied relief under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I. D. Act'). In other words, if such a workman files an application seeking relief under Section 17-B of the I. D. Act whether High Court is obliged to pass orders in such application directing the employer to make payment as contemplated under this section. This question was raised in view of the observations made by this Court in the order dated 22-11-2000 impugned in the instant Letters Patent Appeal, denying to pass appropriate order under Section 17-B, holding that no duty is cast by this section on the High Court to make an order for payment of full wages last drawn by him duri...

Gorakshnath Khandu Bagal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ3158

1. This Criminal Revision Application arises from the order passed in PER No. 444/2004, which was filed by the Respondent wife for recovery of arrears of maintenance for a period of 16 months at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month for Respondent No. 1 and her daughter Ku. Darshana, in addition to the costs. This PER No. 444/ 2004 was filed by respondent for recovery of maintenance allowance after the petition No. 27/2003 filed under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. was disposed of by the Family Court No. 1, Pune, fixing the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the wife and minor daughter Darshana. Since there were arrears amounting to Rs. 24,000/- for a period of 1 month, the warrant was issued to the applicant. The applicant expressed inability to pay any amount and showed willingness to suffer imprisonment. There was no other alternative left for the Family Court No. 1, Pune, but to pass an order of sentence. The Family Court has also found that, to justify the non-payment, ther...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Vxl India Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(193)ELT396(Bom)

ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. The applicant is praying that the statement of facts be called from the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (now CESTAT) for authoritative decision of this Court in the question framed in Para 8, reading as under :Whether the Tribunal was right in law in deciding that the duty ought to be collected from the original importer of the goods who is absconding and that the buyer of the goods has no liability towards payment of duty while buying such tainted goods?2. The contention raised in the aforesaid question is dealt with by the Tribunal in Para 7 of its order , which reads as under:Section 28 of the Act provides for recovery of duty short-levied on imported goods. Clause (2) of Section 125 of the Act provides that where any goods are ordered to be confiscated, the owner of the goods shall, in addition to redemption fine, be liable to pay any duty payable. In our judgment, both these provisions cannot be invoked simulta...

Punjab S/O Sitaram Shirsat Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)DMC269

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.5.2001 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 1999, whereby the appellant/ accused has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, he has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, against which the State did not prefer any appeal.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is required to be stated as under:(a) The marriage of the appellant/accused was solemnized with deceased Baby about ten years ago. They were blessed with children and were living jointly with all the family members. After the marriage Baby happened to go to her parents' place on certain occasions and made complaints to them that her husband beats her ...

Taj Lands End Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT663Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides and considering that the issue involved here is the eligibility of Notification 110/95 CUS dated 05.06.95 to the imports of i.e Aluminum skylight panels/glass panels imported, to be used in Hotel project being set up. The question is whether the said goods imported would be covered b the definition of capital goods in the said notification which define capital goods as follows - (i) "Capital goods" means any plant, machinery, equipment and accessories required for- (a) manufacture or production of other goods including packaging machinery and equipments, refractoriness, refrigeration equipment power generating sets, machine tools, catalysts for initial charge and equipment and instruments for testing research and development, quality and pollution control; (b) use in manufacturing, mining, agriculture, animal husbandry, floriculture, horticulture, pisciculture, poultry and sericulture:Commissioner of Bombay v.Hotel Leela Venture Ltd., 2003 (158) E.L.T. 777 ...

Shree Devkrupa Ship Breaking Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue involved i the present case attracts para 99 (iii) of Mafatlal Inds v Union of India reported in 1997 (89) ELT 247. Para 99 is reproduced as Under:- "99. The discussion in the judgment yields the following propositions. We may forewarn that these propositions are set out merely for the sake of convenient reference and are not supposed to be exhaustive. In case of any doubt or ambiguity in these propositions, reference must be had to the discussion and propositions in the body of the judgment. (i) Where a refund of tax/duty is claimed on the ground that it has been collected from the petitioner/plaintiff-whether before the commencement of the Central Excise and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 or thereafter by mis-interpreting or mis-applying the provisions of the Central Excises and salt Act, 1944 read with Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Tariff Act or by mis-interpreting or ...

Patheja Forgings and Auto Parts Vs. I.F.C.i. Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2005)BC87

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 Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai on Exhibit No.30 in Original Application No. 185/2002. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants/defendant Nos. 1 and 5 for dismissal of the original application and in the alternative for adjourning it until the logical end of the notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as 'Securitization Act') issued by the leader of the consortium (ICICI Bank) of which (the consortium) the applicant/IFCI Ltd. was a member. The applicant IFCI Ltd. filed original application being O.A. No. 185/2002 for recovery of Rs. 1,15,76,15.607/- with interest thereto. After filing of the original application, the leader o...

Maharashtra Rajya Macchimar Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Through Its Manager S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR161

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of counsel. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The Petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Some time in the year 1951 Government of India erected an ice factory, a cold storage and a fish meal plant at Sasoon Docks at Colaba, Mumbai. On 1st May, 1964, the complex consisting of the ice factory, cold storage and fish meal plant came to be transferred to the Fisheries Department of the Government of Maharashtra. Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, which is the Third Respondent to these proceedings, was established on 5th February, 1973 and the aforesaid complex was transferred to it by the State Government. The MFDC operated the project between 1973 and 1976. The State Government thereafter took a decision on 29th July, 1976 to restructure the Third Respondent a...