Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sunanda Wd/O Shrikant Dhote Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR274; 2006(2)BomCR289; (2006)ILLJ984Bom; 2005(4)MhLj525
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sundaram, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.2. Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the husband of the petitioner - Shrikant Dhote was in the employment of respondent No. 2 and he was a member of the Provident Fund Scheme of 1952 framed under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is submitted that Mr. Shrikant Dhote resigned from the post held by him in the employment of respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 31st May, 2000. Mr. Dhote, the husband of petitioner, applied to respondent No. 1 for withdrawal of Provident Fund benefits vide his application/communication, dated 9th August, 2000. It is submitted that when the above referred proposal of the husband of the petitioner was pending before respondent No. 1, the husband of the petitioner-Shrikant Dhote expired on 25th August, 2000. After the death of husband of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an applicati...
Rajaram Lala Ahire and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC793
R.C. Chavan, J.1. Being aggrieved by their conviction for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the resultant sentences imposed upon them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, District Nashik, the appellants have preferred this appeal.2. Facts which led to the prosecution of the appellants, along with one Ramesh Rajaram Ahire, who was acquitted, are as under:3. Mangala, daughter of Bhila Ukha Khairnar, was married to accused No. 2-Prakash Rajaram Ahire about two years prior to the incident. Accused No. 1-Rajaram Lala Ahire is father and Accused No. 4 - Sarjabai Rajaram Ahire is mother of the said Prakash, Accused No. 2, Accused No. 4 Sarjabai is sister of Mangala's father Bhila. After the marriage, Mangala went to reside with her husband and in-laws. After about four months, ill-treatment of Mangala began. Her husband Prakash hit her with a stone on her waist. Mangala's father and mother-in-law also had assaulte...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Behram B. Dubash
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Bom)461; [2005]279ITR377(Bom)
A.S. Aguiar J.1. The following common question of law is referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for consideration of this Court by the Tribunal in I. T. A. Nos. 3126/Bom/1983 and 446/Bom/1984 dated September 17, 1985, pertaining to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, at the instance of the assessee :'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the trust created by the assessee for the benefit of his minor daughter in obedience to the terms of decree of divorce passed against him under the provisions of the Parsis Marriage & Divorce Act, 1936, in a suit brought against him by his wife, was for adequate consideration and, therefore, would not fall within the scope of Section 64(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The factual matrix giving rise to the question referred is as follows :3. The assessee, Behram B. Dubhash, was married to one Mehroo according to Zoroastrian rites on May 12, 1966. B...
Vijay Shivpad Erandole Vs. Smt. Ashwini Sharad Kavadi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2036
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner is the original accused and the respondent No. 1 is the original complainant in Criminal Case No. 541/N/97/D. The said complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant and her father-in-law had given power of attorney to the petitioner herein to sell two flats for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- each and after the said transaction was completed the respondent No. l issued two cheques of Rs. 3,00,000/- each. These cheques were deposited by the complainant in her Bank. However, both the cheques were dishonored and, therefore, a criminal complaint was filed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to punishment until the rising of the Court and further directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aga...
Ashok Kumar B. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT252Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant, M/s. Vallabh Pesticides (Appeal E/885/04), is the manufacturer, on job work basis, on behalf of M/s. United Phosphorous (Appeal E/884/04), other appellants herein. The other appellants are executives of the two firms.2. (a) Duty demands by M/s. Vallabh Pesticides were discharged following the formula of Ujjagar Prints' decision of Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court even after 1-7-2000. Revenue has objection to this mode of valuation and duty payment. They want to invoke Rule 7 of New Valuation Rules to levy duty on values of sale price of M/s.United Phosphorous.(b) Board's Circular No. 619/10/2002-CX., dated 19-2-2002 prescribes that, for job work valuation under new provisions of Section 4 and the rules, the formula for valuation has to be as per Ujjagar Prints' decision.(c) We find no reasons to depart from the valuation as arrived at by the appellants in this case and by no interpretation the sale price of trader getting the goods manufactured could be reckoned...
Rafique Mallick Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC545
1. Appellants is a proprietor of a firm in name and style of M/s Metro Shoes, in appeal against an order directing the levy and payment of duty under Central Excise Act, 1944, on unbranded footwear in loose form, received from Clobbers at a godown at Jetha Warehouse Compound.Dr. Ambedkar Road; where labels were put on footwear so received, pair of shoes were packed in unit containers after such labeling, MRA declaration, logo, bar coating, after checking the footwear received.The shoes so labeled and packed were dispatched to Show Rooms all over for sale. The cobblers (karigars) would bill the appellants and the appellants in turn with mark up M/s Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd., a closely held private limited company.1.2 With amendment to Section 21F, with effect from 1.3.2003, the appellant applied for and took a registration in the name of the proprietory form and were paying duty, albeit under protest.Consequently the appellant, as submitted. "started independent activities of manufacturing...
JockIn Ellis Mendoz Caroline Vs. Haby Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: 3(2006)BC119
1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/interveners being aggrieved by the order dated 15th October, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the D.R.T.-I, Mumbai on exhibit No. 37 in Original Application No. 155 of 2002. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants/interveners in which they had prayed that they be declared as legal owners of the property, which is the subject-matter of the Original Application No. 155 of 2002.2. I have heard Ms. Shaikh for the appellants, Mr. Nagori for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, so also Mr. Sawant for the respondent No. 3. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, there is no infirmity at all in the impugned order.3. It appears that the appellants were allowed to intervene during the pendency of the Original Application being Original Application No. 155 of 2002. The interveners were praying that they be declared as legal owne...
Bomi Munchershaw Mistry Vs. the Kesharwani Co-operative Housing Societ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR97
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The issue raised in Appeal No. 590 of 1994 and in cross objection (L) No. 4 of 1996 filed in Appeal No. 170 of 1994, being common, both these matters are heard together and disposed of by a common Judgment. The cross objections are the surviving trustees of the Trust created under a deed of settlement dated 17/3/1951. The appellant in appeal No. 590 of 1994 is a beneficiary and reversioner under the aforesaid trust. Both the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') and the cross objections have common interest in these proceedings.2. The sole grievance of the plaintiff and the cross objections in these proceedings is that the learned trial Judge grossly erred in declining to cancel the deed of conveyance dated 31/3/1967 executed by Lalchand Hirachand (original defendant No. 2) in favour of Kesharwani Co-operative Housing Society (original defendant No. 1) even after holding that the said deed was ante dated with a view to defraud the revenue and that t...
Trustees of Vanita Vishram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR225; (2005)198CTR(Bom)521; [2006]280ITR345(Bom); 2005(4)MhLj490
V.C. Daga, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law, at the instance of the assessee, for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 10(22) on interest earned on surplus funds of the school (run by the assessee-trust) for Asst. years 1979-80 and 1980-81?' The Facts :2. The trustees of Vanita Vishram having their office at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Road, Mumbai are representing the association formed in the month of January, 1928 with the object of running and maintaining schools for imparting religious, secular and industrial education and training in fine arts and libraries including circulating libraries and reading rooms, with allied objects of providing gymnasium, play-grounds etc. incidental to the educational activities. The Trust filed return for the assessment y...
Seth Jeejeebhoy Dadabhoy Charity Funds and 3 ors. Vs. Farokh Noshir Da ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR345]; (2005)IIILLJ716Bom
1. Heard Mr. C.U. Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Hutoxi Tavadia the learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dated June 21, 2004. By the said order the learned single Judge set aside the order of the Industrial Court dated January 31, 2004 and held that the present appellants shall have to discharge the burden of establishing their objection to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to hear the complaint.3. Mr. C.U. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the relationship of an employee and employer has to be established by the party who asserts it. That the respondent filed the complaint asserting that he was employee of the present appellants, the burden of proof was on the respondent to establish that he was an employee of the present appellants. He placed reliance upon the following judgments:1) Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC and Ors. : (2004)IIILLJ740SC ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »