Mumbai Court September 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.
Rohit Vanmalidas Mehta Vs. Harshad Vanmalidas Mehta and ors. and Manis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR206; 2006(1)BomCR232
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present Notice of Motion is taken out for appointment of Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai in respect of building known as 'Sonal' Building situated at 99, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400036 with all powers under Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure. By prayer (b) of the motion Receiver is also sought in respect of Flat No. 3A situated on 3rd Floor, 'Sonal' Building, 99, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036 with all powers under Order XL Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and with a direction to appoint any person as agent for use of the said premises on payment of monthly compensation and / or Royalty as may be fixed by the Court Receiver. Prayer is also sought in respect of Shop No. 1 on Ground Floor with similar direction to take physical possession and appoint third party as agent in respect of said shop premises. In prayer (c) of the motion, relief is sought that defendant no. 1 to deposit a sum of Rs.1.0 lac per month towards so called market ren...
Vishnu Ramchandra Undage Vs. Ganpati Ramchandra Undage and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR204; 2006(1)BomCR672; 2005(4)MhLj1108
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing forthwith.2. Respondent 1 filed R.C.S. No. 7/94 in the Court of C.J.J.D. Ajra against one Ramchandra Undage original defendant 1, Kondubai Undage, original defendant 2, Vishnu Undage original defendant 3, and the petitioner herein for partition and separate possession of his share claiming that the suit properties are ancestral properties and he has one fourth share therein. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status in the trial Court.3. At the trial defendant 3 remained absent. The suit proceeded ex parte against him. Defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statement. It appears that during the pendency of the suit defendant 2 died and in her place defendants 2(1) and 2(2) were brought on record.4. On 29-4-2000 the suit was partly decreed, it was declared that the plaintiff, defendant 1, defendant 3 are having 6/20th share each and defendant 2(1) and 2(2) are having l...
Vimal Basappa Koli and ors. Vs. Managing Director
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ622; 2006(1)ALLMR470; 2006(1)BomCR656; [2006(109)FLR63]; 2006(3)MhLj275
Mhatre Nishita, J. 1. This First Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The Commissioner has dismissed the application filed by the wife of the deceased workman on the ground that the accident due to which the workman died did not arise out of and in the course of employment.2. The deceased workman Basappa Koli was an ex-army man. After retirement from the army, he was employed with Respondent No. 1-Karkhana as a security guard. On 20.12.1989, the workman was found under the rear wheel of a motor truck No. MWE-1734 in the premises of the Karkhana. The workman died on the spot. Appellant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased workman. Appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. Appellant No. 6 is the married daughter. A claim was filed contending that the deceased who was on duty between 8 am and 4 pm at the main gate of the Karkhana opened the gate for the truck to enter the factory premises. The truck entered the gate for bei...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Emrald Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Bom)124; [2006]284ITR587(Bom)
A.S. Aguiar, J.1. The following question of law arising out of ITA No. 4924/Bom/1984 in R.A. No. 2711/Bom/1987 for the asst. yr. 1981-82, has been referred to this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act by the Tribunal:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that relief under Section 80M should be granted without deducting from the gross dividend, the interest paid on overdraft and other expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning the dividend in view of the provisions of Section 80AA read with Section 80M ?2. The assessee is a company dealing in shares, and earns income from dividends and also property. The assessee-company filed its return for the asst. yr. 1981-82 on 31st July, 1981, declaring a loss of Rs. 935. In response to notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act, the company's accountant attended before the ITO. The assessee had earned income from the business of trading in shares of Rs. 16,549 and dividend ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Posha Rangu Mhatre Since Deceased of His Heir ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj149
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2. The appeal and the cross-objections arise from the judgment and award dated 27-7-1989 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag in Land Reference Case No. 38 of 1989.3. By the notification issued on 3rd February, 1970 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') the claimant's land bearing Survey Nos. 31/5 plus 8a' 35/1, 48/1, 49/4, 50/4 total admeasuring 18,430 sq. metres in area situated in the village of Owe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad was sought to be acquired for New Bombay Project. The notice under Section 9(3) was issued on 7-3-1975. The award under Section 11 came to be declared on 31-7-1986, awarding total compensation of Rs. 25,007.62, Being aggrieved, the claimant preferred an application under Section 18 of the said Act, claiming enhancement, at the rate of Rs. 15.00 per sq. metre. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Reference Court, the claimant sought to enhance the c...
Mohamed Ali Mulla Vs. State of Goa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: III(2006)BC60
N.A. Britto, J.1. Heard Mr. S.M. Volvoikar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Bras De Sa, the learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2. The applicant herein is accused who has been convicted and sentenced and whose sentence has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao by judgment/order dated 6.5.2005, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act for short).2. The applicant accused had borrowed from the respondent No. 2 complainant a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh) on or about 26.5.2001. Subsequently, by way of repayment, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant dated 27.8.2001 for the said sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Margao, but when the said cheque was deposited by the complainant into his account, it was returned dishonoured as a result of which the complainant addressed to the accused a legal notice dated 10.9.2001 which the accused received on or about 14.9.200...
Cit Vs. Maganlal Chaganlal (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: [2006]150TAXMAN146(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' hereinafter referred to as) is at the instance of the revenue, arising out of the order in I.T.A. No. 2848/Bom/1984 dated 16-11-1987 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ('the Tribunal' hereinafter referred to as) for the assessment year 1975-76 whereby the following substantial questions of law has been referred for the opinion of this court :-'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that where the assessee is a dealer in shares and holds certain shares as stock-in-trade, the interest paid by the assessee on the funds borrowed for the purpose of investment in such shares is to be allowed as admissible deduction under section 36(1)(iii) and not under section 57(1)(iii) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that where the assessee is a dealer in shares and holds cert...
Nova Pack Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT394(Bom)
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus ordering and directing respondent no. 3 to forthwith release and deliver to the petitioner two consignments of Synthetic Yarn Waste and ordering and directing respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith pay to respondent no. 3 Warehouse charges in respect of the goods.2. This was the prayer when this writ petition was instituted on 5th February, 1997 in this Court.3. After the petition was filed it was placed before a Division Bench for admission on 24th February, 1997. This Court after hearing learned Counsel appearing for petitioner as well as respondents, passed following order:Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. By order dated 23rd December, 1996 issued by the Central Government to the General Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi, Respondent No. 3 is directed to release the goods and that the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, was directed to ...
Damodar Tukaram Gaunkar (Dr.) Vs. Gopinath Rama Gaunkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR88; 2006(6)BomCR454
Britto N.A., J.1. In this defendant's Second Appeal, arising from R.C.S. No. 116/ 1986, two substantial questions of law require consideration, and they are as follows:a) Whether, in view of the clear mandate of Order XXIII, Rule 3-A and in view of the pronouncement of law in respect thereof by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Hon'ble Court, a separate suit impugning the Consent Decree on the ground that the same is not lawful is maintainable ?(b) Whether the impugned Judgment (in R.C.S. No. 116/86) is perverse being not based on the evidence on record ?To answer the said substantial questions of law, it is necessary to refer briefly to some facts.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit.3. The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant who are related to one another in R.C.S. No. 62/78 was regarding a structure/taverna situated in Survey No. 15/2 of Costi village. As per the defendant, the said st...
Vissanji Sons and Co. Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN195(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J. This reference under section 256(l) of the Income Tax Act, is at the instance of the revenue, arising out of the order in ITA No. 423/Bom./83, dated 30-11-1984 passed by the ITAT, Mumbai ('the Tribunal' for short) for the assessment year 1978-79; whereby the following substantial question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that only the cumulative preference dividends relating to the previous year amounting to Rs. 65,000 could be deducted in working out the undistributed income, which was liable to additional income-tax under section 104 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'Facts:2. The facts giving rise to the present reference in nutshell are that the assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income Tax Officer during the course of assessment found that the statutory requirement of distribution of dividend as lai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »