Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Pramod Prabhakar Kulkarni Vs. Balasahab Desai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhane ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR233; (2006)ILLJ616Bom; 2006(3)MhLj139

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the order of the Appellate Court constituted under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (BIR Act). The Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 and has dismissed the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 78 read with Section 79 of Act. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:The Petitioner was employed with Respondent No. 1 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'employer') which is a co-operative sugar factory engaged in the manufacture of sugar and allied products. He was employed as a clerk from December 1, 1987. On May 6, 1992, his services were terminated. Aggrieved by the termination of his service the Petitioner approached the employer through his advocate, by letter dated May 25, 1992. Since his demand was not acceded to by the employer, he filed an application under Section 78 read with 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. His application was opposed by the employer. Evi...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. V.V.F. Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri R.J. Parekh Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. A very short point is involved in the present appeal of the Revenue.The respondents, who are manufacturer of Glycerine, filed different price lists in part-II showing different prices, at which Glycerine was being sold to different industrial consumer. Along with the price lists contracts entered with their customers were also annexed. Revenue's contention was that since industrial consumers are one class of buyers, there could not be different assessable values within the same class of buyers. As such, the Assistant Commissioner approved all the price lists by adopting the highest price in a particular month and confirmed the demand of duty accordingly. On appeal against the above order Commissioner (Appeals) observed that each industrial consumer constituted different classes of buyers and inasmuch as th...

Mrs. Clara D'Souza Vs. Suraj Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR788; 2006(1)BomCR834; 2005(4)MhLj791

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present notice of motion has been taken out for a declaration that the petitioner being the sole executrix and beneficiary of the will dated 15.2.1990 of the deceased Mrs. Anna Clara Meares is entitled to possession of the flat being residential premises admeasuring about 180 sq. fts. (carpet area) situated at 463, Marinagar, Final Plot No. 557 of Town Planning Scheme, Bombay City No. III, M.M. Chotani Road, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016.2. Some of the material facts of the present case, briefly enumerated are as under :3. One Mrs. Anna Clara Meares expired leaving behind her Will and Testament dated 15.2.1990. She died on 10.3.1996. In the said will and testament dated 15.2.1990, the petitioner herein is the sole executrix and the beneficiary of the said properties of the deceased. The said petitioner filed a probate Petition being Petition No. 1030 of 1997 in respect of the said will and testament dated 15.2.1990 and on 8.6.1999 this Court granted probate in favour of t...

Smt. Shashikala A. Kisan Awad Vs. Divisional Office, Central Railway, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR806; 2005(5)BomCR1; 2005(4)MhLj753

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present notice of motion has been taken out by the petitioner inter alia seeking direction that the respondents should accept the succession certificate granted by this Court on 29.6.2001 and consequently pay the dues of the deceased to the petitioner who is the widow.2. Some of the material facts in the present case are as under :3. One Shri Kisan Awad was working as the ex-Diesel Mechanic in the respondent railways. He died while in service on 29.12.1999. On his death, the petitioner being a widow made an application for the dues being paid over to her and a minor daughter. However, one Mrs. Mangala Kisan Awad also along with her son claimed to be the wife of the said deceased employee and filed a claim before the Railway Authorities. The Railway Authorities directed the parties to obtain succession certificate from the Court of Competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner herein filed a petition for succession certificate being Testamentary Petition No. ...

Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Being a Cooperative Society Regist ... Overruled

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom385; 2005(4)ALLMR875; 2005(6)BomCR55; 2006(2)CTLJ105(Bom); 2005(4)MhLj629

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 4th February, 1989, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in Special Civil Suit No. 310 of 1987, whereby, the Suit was dismissed. 2. The appellants is a Co-operative Sugar Factory, having its registered office at Post Sonai village, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar. By an agreement dated 25th September, 1983, the appellant executed the contract for erection of a paper plant at village Sonai on a turn-key basis to utilise the left over material called 'bagasse' of the sugarcane with M/s. Pentagon Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'M/s. Pentagon'). The total value of the contract was Rs. 3,40,00,000/-. Time was the essence of the contract. The said Pentagon had guaranteed the performance as agreed. As per clause 15 to 17 of the agreement, the appellants were entitled to retain 10% of the amount and which were to be paid after 3 to 6 months after successful...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Sarita P. Shirke and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]280ITR325(Bom)

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the order passed by the Assessing Officer.2. The brief facts which are necessary for deciding this appeal are as under :Respondent No. 1 is admittedly a non-resident Indian (NRI) and is a permanent resident in Dubai. She made a gift of Rs. 1,00,000 to Mrs. Madhuri D. Joshi who is a resident of Pune. This gift was made by cheque at Srinagar and the amount was transferred from Vasco Bank to State Bank of India at Srinagar. The assessee claimed the exemption from payment of gift-tax in view of Section 5(1)(ii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The Assessing Officer however held that the whole exercise of making a gift by issuing a cheque through State Bank of India, Srinagar, was a colourable transaction for avoiding gift-tax and, therefore, directed respondent No. 1 to pay gift-tax on the said transaction. The Depu...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mrs. Sarita P. Shirke and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Bom)225; [2006]281ITR373(Bom)

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The Revenue is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal which has confirmed the order passed by the Dy. CIT(A) and has held that respondent No. 1 was not liable to pay gift-tax and her case was exempted under Section 5(1)(ii). The appeal was admitted by this Court and the following substantial question of law was framed :A. Whether the gifts made in Kashmir by the assessee, a non-resident of India, out of the money transferred from other part of the country, is exempted from tax under the GT Act, 1958 2. The brief facts which are necessary for deciding this appeal are as under :It is the case of the Revenue that one Ashok Chowgule deposited an amount of Rs. 7,85,631 in Central Bank, Vasco, on 21st Oct., 1982. Before the said amount was deposited in August, 1981, 20 companies of Chowgule House were floated at Kashmir. Thereafter on 25th Oct., 1982 a demand draft of Rs. 7,90,000 was issued by State of India, Vasco, in assessee's name and it was made pay...

Dy. Cit Central Circle 31 Vs. Pallavi Holdings (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)5SOT190(Mum.)

This is a bunch of three appeals. The common assessment year is 1992-93. The appeal in ITA No. 1912/Mum/2000 is filed by the revenue.The said appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Cent. VIII at Mumbai dated 4-2-2000. The appeal in ITA No.2607/Mum/2001 is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Cent. VIII at Mumbai passed under section 154 of the income Tax Act, 1961 on 2-3-2001. The appeal in ITA No.1473/Mum/ 2002 is again filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Cent. VIII at Mumbai passed on 28-1-2002. All the three appeals arise out of the assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the income Tax Act, 1961 on 30-3-1998.The assessee in this case is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of dealing in shares, debentures, bonds, securities, etc. The assessee-company had filed a return declaring loss of Rs. 44,174 on 25-7-1994. As the return was a belated return...

Sheshrao M. Kuratkar (D) by Lrs. Vs. Keshavrao M. Kuratkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom33; 2006(3)ALLMR660

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this appeal takes an exception to the Judgment and decree dated 30-6-1989 passed by the Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 202/1985, whereby the appeal is allowed and the Judgment and decree dated 15-10-1985 passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 119/1981 has been set aside by which the respondent-defendant was directed to deliver the possession of the suit house, cattle shed and the open space forming the suit property to the plaintiff with further direction to hold enquiry into the mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Brief facts are as under:The plaintiff owns a house on the area admeasuring 150 x 150 quibits. This property was owned formerly by the Krushna Sada Kuratkar, who made a gift of the same to Mahadeo Zolbaji, the father of the plaintiff as well as the defendant. Thereafter, on 11-1-1950 Mahadeo had e...