Mumbai Court October 2006 Judgments

Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. Vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The short issue that we are required to adjudicate in this appeal is whether or not the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that the assessee before us, i.e., Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, was required to withhold tax @ 16 per cent from payment of Australian Dollars (A$) 3,25,000 made to M/s. Ford Credit Australia Limited, Australia (hereinafter referred as to Australian company,).2. The developments leading to this litigation before us are as follows. The appellant tax deduct or is an Indian company jointly formed by Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited, India, (hereinafter referred as to KMFL,) and Ford Credit International Inc., USA (hereinafter referred as to FCII,). The appellant is a non-banking finance company and is mainly engaged in the business of providing finance for purchase of cars. On 4-4-2000, the appellant moved an application to the assessing officer for permission to remit A$ 3,25,000 to Australian company without any deduction of withholding taxes. The ab...

Shri Dattu Appa Patil (Since Deceased, by Legal Heirs and Representati ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR421; 2006(6)BomCR246

Ranjana Desai, J. 1. In the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order dated 5/3/1994 passed by respondent 2 - the Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records, Pune, and order dated 13/10/1995 passed by respondent 1 - the State of Maharashtra. 2. The facts, which give rise to the present petition may be shortly stated. Appa Rama Patil, the father of the original petitioner owned agricultural lands in Village Asurle, Taluka Panhale, District Kolhapur. Yesaba Rama Patil - the father of respondent 3 owned Jirayat land bearing Survey No. 25/6 admeasuring 10 Gunthas and one Rama Dhondi Patil owned land bearing Survey No. 77/3B. In 1962, the Consolidation Scheme framed under The Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short, 'the said Act') came to be applied to Village Asurle. The work of consolidating small pieces of lands into larger blocks was undertaken. As a ...

Avinash Prabhakar Latpate and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra Throug ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR227; 2007(1)MhLj731

R.M. Savant, J.1. Heard Shri Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Ghadge, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioners, by the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugn the letter dated 7.3.2006, by which their services, as Field Workers in class IV category, were terminated by the respondent - Assistant Director of Health Services. The challenge of the petitioners is mainly on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. It would be necessary to narrate few facts for appreciating the controversy raised in the petition : It is the case of the petitioners that they were working on daily wages in various district Malaria Offices as Field Workers for several years. Pursuant to the special drive initiated by the Government of Maharashtra for appointment of candidates belonging to backward classes and since the petitioners fulfilled necessary criter...

Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jamshed Kawasjee Vakeel and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR465; 2006(6)BomCR3

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The defendants are in appeal, dissatisfied with the order dated 7.8.2006. By the said order, the learned Motion Judge restored the suit which was dismissed in default on 9.10.2003. 2. The counsel for the respondents (original plaintiffs) raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal. Relying upon the Division Bench judgement of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Tulsiram Bhagwandas v. Sitaram Srigopal : AIR1959Cal389 , the counsel for the respondents urged that an order restoring the suit made under Order IX Rule 9 of the C.P.C. is not a 'judgment' and, therefore, not appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. In the case of Tulsiram Bhagwandas, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held thus:(22) It may, however, be said, although it was not so contended at the Bar, that the decision in ILR 49 Cal. 616 AIR 1922 Cal. 407 cannot govern the present case, because there was no dismissal for default, but a decision on the ...

Shri Sahil Khan Vs. Hashmat and Company

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR243; [2007(112)FLR618]; (2007)IILLJ193Bom

ORDERR.M. Lodha,J.1. On 8.2.1992, seven employees of the respondent were charge-sheeted. The appellant is one of them. The appellant was charged with the following misconduct:-It has been reported that on the 3rd of February, 1992, at about 12:30 P.M. you alongwith Shri Ainul Haq Sikander Khan, Shri Abdul Khaliq, Shri Muslim Shaikh, Shri Vish Kondvilkar and some outsiders have come to the main entrance of our sister concern M/s. Kachins and gheraoed their shop, preventing their customers to go in you get out of the shop. It has been also reported that you have indulged in the shouting of dirty slogans against partners of M/s. Kachins. Messr. Kachins had to take police help from the tardeo Police Station and you continued the gherao and shouting of dirty slogans till 1:15 p.m. you have continued your gherao and slogan shouting for almost 45 minutes and created a scene in front of messr. Kachins shop and you have left the entrance of messr. Kachins only after the intervention of the poli...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Joao F.C. Fernandes

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR429; 2006(6)BomCR277

Kakade P.V., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable by consent.2. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.3. The appeal is preferred by the appellant, Assurance Company, against the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco da Gama, decreeing the respondent's/plaintiffs suit to recover an amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- with interest which was decreed at the rate of 12% from 23/03/ 1992 till final payment.4. The respondent/plaintiff came with the case that he was the owner of a fishing trawler F.T. IVI named 'Andreza' bearing registration No. MAR-A-61-DF duly registered with Captain of Ports, Panaji, Goa. The said trawler was insured with the appellant/defendant for the period from 21/1/1990 to 19/1 /1991 for the amount of Rs. 2.75.000/ - under the Marine Hull Policy. On 06/5/ 1990, the vessel developed some problem due to parting of a wooden plank of the engine room and inspite of best efforts the vessel sank in the Arabian Sea near Tamran Islan...

Madankumar Babulal Sanghvi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007]290ITR590(Bom)

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated January 27, 1994, passed by the members of the Appropriate Authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The petition was admitted on June 7, 1997, and the parties were directed to maintain status quo in the meanwhile. Subsequently, a reply has been filed by Mr. V.V. Nagarkar, Income-tax Officer, in the office of the appropriate authority on October 6, 1997. The petitioners have filed rejoinder.3. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are owners of a plot of land situated at Chinchwad, Pune, bearing survey No. 128, Hissa No. 2, admeasuring 1,67,677 square feet. The first three petitioners entered into an agreement of development with petitioner No. 4 on September 22, 1993, for development of the property to the extent of 54,000 square feet thereof. The price agreed for the development of this part of 54,000 square feet was Rs. 54,54,000. Thus, the accepted rate was Rs. 101 (rupees one hundred one only) per...

Baban Motiramji Mohod Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2007)BC439

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties finally.All these applications are arising out of the matters under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act between same parties. Hence heard together.All relevant matters are between the same complainant and the accused and the prosecutions against the applicant are for the same offence i.e. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These matters pending in the Courts of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola and 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, details thereof are as under:----------------------------------------------------------------------------Sr. Criminal Criminal Pending before the Court belowNo. Application ComplaintNo. in No. High Court----------------------------------------------------------------------------1. 836/2006 2321/2005 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola2. 837/2006 2689/2005 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola3. 1273/2006...

Subhash Gulabchand Jaju Vs. Maharashtra State Transport Corporation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR257; 2007(4)BomCR443

Munshi V.G., J.1. First Appeal (No. 461/ 1991) is directed by the appellant (original claimant), feeling displeased with the award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, on 4.4.1988, in M.A.C.P. No. 101/1989, whereby the claim for compensation was partly allowed, together with future interest.2. The important facts of the claim petition may be briefly stated as under:The appellant (original claimant), on 11.6.1983, travelled by S.T. Bus (MTF 9030) on Pune-Amalner road. The said Bus, which was driven by respondent No. 4, driver, met with an accident. Number of occupants of the Bus did sustain fatal injuries and, succumbed to fatal injuries. Remaining other occupants did sustain injuries, including the appellant (claimant). Therefore, the appellant did file petition before the Tribunal for compensation.3. The fact that, the Bus met with the accident, number of persons died in the said accident and, number of persons received injuries, etc. is not in dispute. Ho...