Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Geetanjali Woollen Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.V. X-press Annapurna and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR31

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. This suit is filed in the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court by the plaintiff for the recovery of US Dollars 57,860.00 with further interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal amount of US Dollars 50,000/- as per the particulars of claim which is annexed at Exhibit F to the plaint. The said particulars of claim indicates that a sum of US Dollars 45,065.00 is claimed towards the value of the goods in respect of Container No. 106397(O) and further claim for other charges of US Dollars 6,309.10 recoverable towards D.E.P.B. and interest for the period from 14.4.1998 to 27.12.1998.2. Some of the material facts of the present case briefly enumerated are as under :-3. In respect of the contract for export, the plaintiff was required to export the goods to one M/s. Asfeha Tewolde K/Yesus (East African Blanket Plant, Ethiopia) and for the said export the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia established an irrevocable letter of credit in favour of the...

Dr. Prakash B. Sultane Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Bom)529; [2006]280ITR593(Bom)

A.S. Aguiar, J.1. By this reference, the following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax, 1961, by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee Dr.Prakash Sultane, in R.A. Nos. 614 & 615(PN) of 1986 arising out of ITA Nos. 1603 & 1604 (PN) of 1985 for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1981-82.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the income from assets received on partition dated 1-1-72 to the extent of Rs.15,381/-for A.Y. 1981-82 and Rs.12,242/- for A.Y. 1982-83 was assessable in the hands of the assessee individual ?'2. The factual matrix giving rise to the aforesaid question of law is as follows:-The assessee is a doctor by profession. His income from profession was assessable in his hands as an individual. The assessee was member of a bigger HUF which was partitioned on 1-1-72. At the time of partition and right upto 22nd January, 1980 the assessee was ...

Shri Vishnu Tayappa Kamble Vs. Abdul Rashid Abdul Hakim Ansari

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR477; 2005(4)MhLj595

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The revision applicant has assailed the order passed by the Competent Authority at Pune allowing the Application No. 47 of 1996 filed under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short 'the Bombay Rent Act'). The said application was filed on the ground that the period of licence had expired and, therefore, the landlord was entitled to the possession of the suit premises, namely, Flat No. L-50/1156, located on the ground floor, Survey No. 191-A, on which the tenements were built by the Maharashtra Housing Board and it admeasured a total area of 21.08 sq.mtrs. The applicant-landlord claimed that the suit premises were given on leave and licence basis to the present petitioner since 1989 and the agreement was oral. The period of agreement was for 11 months. But as per the landlord the petitioner failed to vacate the premises after the expiry of 11 months and the occupant did not pay the licence fees after the expir...

Madhura Coats Ltd. as Gents to J and P Coats Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Bom)590; [2005]279ITR493(Bom)

A.S. Aguiar, J.1. The following questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 4150/Bom/82 dated 31.7.86 for the assessment year 1978-79 have been referred to this Court for its opinion under Section 256(1) of the ITA Act, 1961 at the instance of the assessee, viz. M/s.Madhura Coats Ltd.(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, considering the provisions of sections 47, 49 and 55 of the Act, the assessee-company was not entitled to exercise the option to substitute the fair market value as on 1st January 1964, of the shares of J & P Coats (India) Ltd., and A & F Harvey Ltd., as cost of acquisition of shares of Madura Coat Ltd. sold by it, under Section 55 of the Act in computing the capital gain or loss?(2) If the answer to abovementioned question is in the negative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for purpose of computing capital gains, the...

Desouza Motors, Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Bom)163

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. In all the above three petitions, as the identical question of law is involved, we are disposing of all the three above petitions by this common order.2. As far as Writ Petition No. 6713 of 2000 is concerned, it appears that the petitioner's case therein was pending before the Settlement Commission, however, during the pendency, the petitioner also approached the designated authority, under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, and under the said scheme, the designated authority finally determined the income of the petitioner for the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1992-93 and 1993-94. With regard to the same assessment years even the Settlement Commission determined the income with regard to the aforesaid assessment years and the following chart will be clear with regard to the same :Income determinedIncome related to by Settlement DifferenceAssessment year KVSS Commission1988-89 1,21,420 1,21,420 Nil1989-90 1,60,987 2...

Vijay Bhagvan Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ4210

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- delivered by the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 20-7-1999 in Sessions Case No. 232/98, the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. The conspectus of the prosecution case, in brief, is as under :The appellant was married to Anusaya, cousin sister of deceased Bhagwan Navagire. The deceased was married to sister of the appellant named, Sangita. Sangita died due to burn injuries. Prosecution was launched against the deceased Bhagwan and others in a Court in Buldhana District for offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A r.w. 34 of I.P.C. Anusaya, wife of the appellant, who was cousin of the deceased Bhagwan, thereafter started staying with her parents. 3. It is alleged that deceased Bhagwan was to remarry on 21st April, 1998. The appellant Vijay Jadhav had threatened Bhagwan that if he remarries, he woul...

ion Exchange (India) Ltd. Vs. Msk Projects (India) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR645; IV(2006)BC463; 2005(4)MhLj921

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Mr. Divekar for petitioners and Mr. Modi for respondents.2. This is a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Petitioners submit that the suit instituted by the respondents is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,97,529/- with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till payment of realisation. By this Arbitration Petition, the petitioners who are original defendants in Summary Suit No. 2294 of 2003 pray that the dispute in the suit be referred to arbitration as per Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.3. It is the case of the petitioners that the claim in the suit is based upon a letter dated 24th December, 1997. According to them, this was a Letter of Intent (LOI for short) for civil work on the terms and conditions more particularly set out therein. This LOI is relied upon by the respondents in the plaint. They have also referred to and relied upon the terms and conditions incorporated in the same.4. Mr. Divek...

Shadab Siddiq Khan Vs. A.N. Roy, Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR823; 2006(1)MhLj475

Ranjana Desai, J.1. This petitioner ('the detenu' for brevity) is detained under the order of detention dated 17th November, 2005 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981('the said Act' for short) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said order of detention along with the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof was served on the detenu on 22-11-2004.2. The order of detention is based on one C.R. and two in-camera statements. C.R. No. 262 of 2004 is registered at Nagpada police station under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The statement of witness 'A' is recorded on 25-9-2004 and the statement of witness 'B' is recorded on 28-9-2004. On the basis of this material the detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu is a dangerous person as ...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunita Nandkishore Borkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2006)ACC462

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The short question of law that arises in this appeal is whether the insurer even though not liable to pay compensation can be directed to satisfy the Award in favour of the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident in view of the decisions in (i) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Ors. : AIR2004SC1340 and (ii) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Ors. III (2005) ACC 423 : 2005 (2) TAC 1 (S.C.).3. The aforesaid question has been considered by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (supra) wherein it has been held in para 21 that:The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that law was not clear so long a...

Aspi Rustomji Balsara Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The issue relates to the question as to whether "scored out M.R.P." is to be ignored. We find that the matter has been clarified by Board Circular No. 673/64/2002-CX., dated 28-10-2002 issued from F. No. 6/11/2002-CX-I. However, the impugned order has been passed against the appellants on the ground that the said circular is not retrospectively applicable. In view of the fact that the said circular merely clarifies the legal position, the lower appellate authority is not correct in saying it will have only prospective effect. The legal position remains the same before and after issue of the said circular since the law has not undergone any amendment. Hence, we are of the view that the Board's Circular is very much applicable in respect of the appellants' case and they are entitled to the benefit under the same. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals. The stay application also stand disposed off....