Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

Central Bank of India Vs. Krishna Ganpat Karekar

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)BC162

1. This substantive appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant Central Bank of India, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13th December. 2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai in Original Application No. 3287 of 1999. By the impugned judgment and order, though the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application with costs and interest at the rate of 16% p.a. from the date of suit till realization of the amount and ordered the defendant Nos. 1 to 1(C) to pay to the applicant Bank jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 1,00,25,449.14, he absolved the defendant No. 2 respondent herein Krishna Ganpat Karekar from the liability as a guarantor. Hence, this appeal to that limited extent. The defendant No. 1 Geeta Poultry Farm is a partnership firm of which defendant Nos. 1(A) to 1(C) are partners. The defendant No. 2 is a guarantor for the repayment of the amount, which the applicant Bank disbursed to the defendant No. 1 fir...

Wallfort Shares and Stock Brokers Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)96ITD1(Mum.)

These two appeals have been filed by the assessee on 17-12-2003 and 6-4-2004 against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals)-IV, Mumbai dated 7-11-2003 and 12-12-2003 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders under section 143(3) for assessment years 2001-2002 and 2000-2001 respectively. These appeals have been referred to us as a Special Bench to decide the following issues: 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss incurred by the assessee on purchase and sale of units of Mutual Funds is allowable or not? 2. Whether the provisions of section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be interpreted as retrospective in operation and if so, its effect?" The facts of the case relevant to the questions referred to us, briefly, are that the assessee company filed return of income for assessment year 2001-2002 disclosing total income at Rs. 57,31,610 on 29-10-2001. The assessing officer completed assessment under section 143(3) on 31-3-2003 at t...

Wallfort Shares and Stock Brokers Vs. Income-tax Officer [Alongwith

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee on 17.12.2003 and 6.4.2004 against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals)-IV, Mumbai dated 7.11.2003 and 12.12.2003 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders Under Section 143(3) for assessment years 2001-2002 and 2000-2001 respectively. These appeals have been referred to us as a Special Bench to decide the following issues:- 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss incurred by the assessee on purchase and sale of units of Mutual Funds is allowable or not? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 94(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be interpreted as retrospective in operation and if so, its effect?" 2. The facts of the case relevant to the questions referred to us, briefly, are that the assessee company filed return of income for assessment year 2001-2002 disclosing total income at Rs. 57,31,610/-on 29th October, 2001. The Assessing Officer completed assessment Under Section 143(3) o...

Simshah Estates and Tradg. Co. Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. NavIn Ramji S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR136; [2006]65SCL216(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The Appeals No. 16 of 2005 and 17 of 2005 arising out of the common order passed by the Company Law Board in two Company Petitions being Company Petition No. 11 of 2003 which is in respect of a Company known as Simshah Estates Trading Company Private Limited whereas Company Petition No. 21 of 2003 is in respect of Simplex Engineering and Foundry Work Limited The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. Navin Ramji Shah and his group are common Respondents in both the aforesaid appeals. These two appeals are arising in the aforesaid two company petitions which has been preferred by Respondent nos. 1 to 3. The third appeal has been filed by one Complex Trading Private Limited who is claiming that they are affected parties by virtue of the impugned orders in the aforesaid two appeals passed by the Company Law Board in the aforesaid two Company Petitions. All the parties have agreed before me that the decision in the case of one of the Company Appeal would decide all the company appea...

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Jagson Intl. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom335; 2005(3)ARBLR167(Bom); I(2006)BC37; 2005(5)BomCR58; 2005(3)MhLj1141

D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. By this Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the Appellants challenge the order dated 9th August, 2004 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this Appeal are; in July, 1999, the Appellants invited a tender bearing No.MRBC/DBG/MM/RIGS(CH)/51(46)/990T-873 for the charter hire of one slot/Cantilever type Jack up rig. 3. In response to the invitation of the aforesaid tender, five bidders submitted their offers including the Respondents and one M/s.Neptune Exploration and Industries Ltd.( hereinafter referred to as 'M/s.Neptune') was also one of the bidders. The Respondents and M/s.Neptune offered the same Rigs 'Sakhalinskaya' and 'Kurilskaya' for the said tender. The Appellants had called upon the Respondents and M/s.Neptune to clarify and interalia confirm the availability of the said Rigs. M/s.Neptune furnished to the Appellants a letter dated 8th December, 1999 from M/s.Osneft Sakhali...

Ganesh Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom324; 2005(5)BomCR69; 2005(4)MhLj263

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties. Heard both the sides. Perused the records.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of Ginning and Pressing since the year 1938. Shri Pannalal Shivratan Bagdia is the Managing Director of said company. The company owns land bearing Survey No. 225, admeasuring 5 hectares and 24 Ares (CTS No. 350), situated at Jalna, Previously, this portion of land was in an industrial zone. However, subsequently, Municipal Council, Jalna, vide its Resolution dated 13-7-2001, submitted a proposal to the Government on 5-12-2002 for converting use of said land from industrial to residential purpose. This proposal was approved by the Government. Accordingly, use of land was changed. The petitioner had earlier obtained N.A. permission for using the land for industrial purpose, however, as the use of land changed from industrial to residential purpose, petitioner submit...

Narayan Rajaram Alchetty Vs. Balamma Baburao Shrirekam and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR873; 2005(5)BomCR38; 2005(4)MhLj538

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioner-landlord has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seek to challenge the concurrent findings given by the Courts below, by which his petition or suit for eviction was dismissed on all counts, including bona fide need and comparative hardship, as contemplated under the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act). Therefore, the present petition. 2. Heard the learned Counsel, Mrs. Suhasini Mutalik, appearing for the petitioner. None appeared for respondents 1 and 2, though served. The suit premises consists of one room, admeasuring 10' X 10' situated on the first floor in 1219 (old) 1159 (new), Bhawani Peth, Pune. Respondent No. 1 is residing in the suit premises on the monthly rent of Rs. 10/- per month. Respondent No. 1 is staying alone in the suit premises. The petitioner-landlord consists more than 7 members including his one daughter and three sons. They are in possession of only two rooms. ...

indo International Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Provisions o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ208

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. On July 6, 2005, I had taken up this petition for final disposal at admission stage with the consent of the parties. On that day, I heard the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in all these petitions. On that day, 1 have extensively heard the Respondent No. 2 appearing in person. I reserved the Judgment and fixed these matters on 25th July 2005 for pronouncement of Judgment. Thereafter, these petitions were mentioned before me by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor requested me to give an opportunity to the learned Advocate General to make his submissions. Accordingly on 15th July 2005, I have heard submissions of the learned Advocate General. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners replied to the submissions made by the learned Advocate General. I had the benefit of perusing the written submissions filed by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners and the submissions in w...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vivek Gangadhar Thakare,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR180; 2005CriLJ3625

Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1997 on 24.7.1997 the State-appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before us.2. With the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel appearing for respondents-original accused we have scrutinized the entire evidence on and reappreciated the same.3. The prosecution story is that the marriage of deceased Pramila was solemnized with accused No. 1 on 30.4.1996. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the in-laws of deceased Pramila. It is the allegation that the deceased was objected to cruelty by accused on account of non-satisfaction of the demands of locket and colour television. On 10.9.1996 the message was received that the deceased was no more. Chandwad police on the basis of information received from accused No. 3 about the hanging of the ...

Bansilal Dattatraya Madiwale Vs. Dhondopant Balkrishna Kulkarni

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR97

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner is the landlord and respondent is the tenant. The premises consists of two rooms on ground floor in house bearing No. 636 situated at Kasba Peth, Pune. Both the Courts, after considering the material, as well as, the evidence led by the parties, held in favour of the petitioner that the case of bonafide need, as sought, has been made out. However, the Additional District Judge, Pune, by the impugned judgment and order dated 29/8/1992, (appellate Court) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant and dismissed the suit for possession of the petitioner on the sole ground of the greater hardship to the tenant, though confirmed the finding of bonafide need of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Heard Mrs. Suhasini Mutalik, the learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent, though served. The present petition was admitted on 26/7/1993, o...