Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Jagmohan Singh Arora and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Mum.)682

1. All these appeals have been filed by the different assessees on various grounds which are being dealt as under : 1.1 Action under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961, was conducted in the business as well as the residential premises of the appellant group consisting of the following persons on 10th Dec., 1998 during which certain documents, books of account and other valuables including cash and jewellery were found and seized. 1.2 Statement under Section 132(4) of the main person of group-assessee, Shri Jagmohan Singh Arora was recorded in the course of such search proceedings. The said interrogation began at 10 p.m. and continued till 5 a.m., the next morning. During the course of such interrogation the appellant was questioned about receipt of on-money on account of construction project at Bhayandar and also unaccounted investment in the land purchased at Bhayandar by the assessee-group. On being denied the allegation of receipt of such on-money and also of unaccounted investment, t...

Gay Silk Mills Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Mum.)1108

1. Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of the learned CIT(A). The appeals relate to the asst.yrs. 1994-95 and 1995-96.2. In both the appeals, ground No. 1 taken by the assessee reads as under : 1.1 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned AO erred on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in passing the assessment order under Section 147 r/w Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) and the said order being bad in law is liable to be quashed. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned AO erred in not recording his reasons for reassessment/reopening, prior to the issue of notice under Section 148 and, therefore, the order passed under Section 147 r/w Section 143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 1.3 The CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding "it is seen from the records that, the AO had recorded reasons for reopening the assessment which has also been mentioned in the assessmen...

Somsingh Chandrasingh Thakur Vs. Head Master, CaptaIn R.M. Oak School ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR610; 2006(2)BomCR673; 2005(4)MhLj946

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a Single Judge on 9th February 2004 dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant herein to challenge the decision and order of the Respondent No. 5 herein, Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal dated 23rd June 2003. That decision of the Respondent No. 5 dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant herein to the School Tribunal wherein he had challenged his reversion from the post of Head Master to that of the Assistant Teacher under the order dated 1st May 2003 issued by the Respondent No. 2, Secretary of the concerned educational institution, whereunder the Respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Head Master. Respondent No. 1 to this Appeal is the concerned school through its Head Master and Respondent No. 3 is the Educational Officer (Secondary) of the Zilla Parishad, Thane.2. The short facts leading to this Appeal are as follows:-Balak Mandir Sanstha is an Educational Institution situa...

Satish S. Paralkar Vs. V.V. Tulzapurkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR792; 2006(1)BomCR438; 2005(4)MhLj603

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff inter alia claiming that he is the owner in respect of the flat bearing No. 12 situate on the 4th floor of the building known as 'Navneet' 125, Ram Maruti Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400 028. It is an admitted position that under the development agreement dated 19-4-1991 executed by the original owner of the building Mrs. Pushpa S. Paralkar rights in respect of the said land and balcony FSI of the said building were given to the developer the defendant No. 7. Under the said development agreement, he was also given the right to sell the flats which are constructed by him on ownership basis excluding the flat on the fifth floor which was allotted to the plaintiff as the owner of the said property in consideration of conferring development rights on the defendant No. 7. Pursuant to the said agreement for sale, the said flats are constructed by the defendant No. 7 and are sold by the defendant No. 7 on what is popularly known as...

Mohd. MinhajuddIn S/O Shaikh Habib Qureshi Through His Lrs. Noor-ul-ha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR225; 2006(2)BomCR172; 2006(1)MhLj163

A.B. Naik, J. 1. One Mohammed Minhajuddin Shaikh Habib Quareshi, by this petition, has challenged the judgment and order dated 1st February, 1989 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Aukaf and Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra, dismissing appeal and confirming the order passed by respondent No. 2. In that appeal, the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Administrator of the Marathwada Wakf Board/respondent No. 2 herein, on 7th April, 1984.2. During pendency of this Writ Petition, the original writ petitioner Minhajuddin expired and his heirs and legal representatives, have filed an application for being substituted them as heirs and legal representatives and to bring them on record. That application was allowed by this Court on 28-1-2005. Now, the heirs of deceased petitioner are prosecuting this Petition.3. The short controversy involved in this Petition is whether the order dated 7th April, 1984 passed by the Secretary, Marathwada Wakf Board Aurangabad as approved ...

Tata Memorial Hospital (Tata Memorial Centre) Vs. Shashikant Shrikrish ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR414; 2006(1)MhLj378

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition impugnes the judgment and order dated 29th April, 1994 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai dismissing the application (IT) 53 of 1982 filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D. Act') in Reference (IT) 298/1981. The petitioner hospital is run by Tata Memorial Centre which is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The respondent-employee was initially appointed vide the appointment order dated 10th June, 1971 in the post of 'Upper Division Clerk' by an order dated 3rd September, 1980, he came to be transferred to the library from the medicine department as clerk cum typist. It appears that on or about 23rd January, 1981, he was issued a charge-sheet and aggrieved by the same he had approached the Industrial Court at Mumbai by filing a complaint of unfair labour practice. The said complaint came to be disposed as withdrawn as the employer made a statement before the Indu...

Shailendra Kumar Sengupta Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj29

K.J. Rohee, J.1. By these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India issuance of summons by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 5th Court, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x), 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') upon Criminal Complaint Case No. 152/2000 instituted by respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainant') has been challenged.2. The complainant is a Sikh belonging to Mehtar caste which is a Scheduled Caste. At the relevant time he was serving as Diesel Mechanic Girade-I in South Eastern Railway, Motibagh Diesel Shed, Nagpur. Heeralal Pande, the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 2221/2003 (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 1) was serving as Sectional Engineer (Electrical). Srinivasa Kalyanaraman, the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 2524/2003 (hereinafter r...

State Vs. Avinash Naik and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ609

ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. The Complainant/State has sought heave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Sections 323, 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. vide Judgment/Order dated 31-12-2004 of the learned J.M.F.C, Mapusa.2. It is the case of the prosecution that Shri Ibrahim Khatib, the S.D.P.O. of Mapusa had called the Complainant Subhada Sawant on 26-2-1999 at about 16.30 hours in connection with a complaint made by her against her husband and other in-laws and the said inquiry was entrusted to A-1/ Avinash Naik and A-2/ Smt. Ratan Fatarpekar in an adjoining room when A-1 / Avinash Naik and A-2/ Smt. Ratan Fatarpekar on the pretext of conducting an inquiry subjected the said Complainant-Subhada Sawant in furtherance of common intention to humiliation, ill-treatment and torture and assaulted her and inflicted 10 burn injuries with lighted cigarettes on her hand and back, between 16.30 to 20.00 hours and threatened to arrest on flimsy grounds. The said complainant-Subhada Sawant was dealt in...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Rama Motiram Motwani and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR795

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Maharashtra has challenged the order dated 19-10-1992 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector (R.D.C.) respondent No. 2, in proceedings initiated by it under Section 4(2) of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The R.D.C. has rejected the said application holding that the respondent No. 1 who was sought to be evicted was never a authorised occupant and he installed his panthela under the authority of R.T.O. Employees Credit Co-operative Society.2. Mrs. Khade, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for petitioner has pointed out that the said application under Section 4(2) of the Act, was filed against the respondent No. 1 stating that after the new building of R.T.O. was constructed by P.W.D. possession of office building was taken on 1-5-1989 from Public Works Department and the respondent No...

Shah Steel and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1 Appellants are assessee under the Central Excise, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods for which they procure steel sheets, they avail credit under the Modvat Rules, of duty discharged, on such sheets; and the traders of HR/CR sheets who issued the documents and are Registered under the Central Excise Rules as applicable to such dealers.1.2. Based on certain enquiries made by the Anti Evasion officers, the Credit availed was objected on the grounds, that the description of the goods as mentioned in the documents were different from the goods supplied. While the documents mentioned the duty paid goods as CR Coils, such CR coils had never been loaded and what was despatched to the assessee were sheets, which allegedly could not be connected with the documents of Coils.1.3. It was further contended in the notice issued that conversion of CR Coils into sheets required the user of Slitters/Cutting machines.The process required to be undertaken on CR Coil were initial decoiling...