Mumbai Court October 2006 Judgments

Shanaz D' Souza Vs. Sheikh Ameer Saheeb and Anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR362; 2007(3)MhLj324

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is complainant's appeal filed against the acquittal of the accused, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act, for short) by Order dated 30-12-2004 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao.2. The case of the complainant, in brief, was that the accused had borrowed from the complainant on 1-6-2002 a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- payable within a period of six months and the accused having failed to make the payment in cash, issued two cheques, the first dated 4-11-2002 and the second dated 5-11-2002, each for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, drawn on Vysya Bank Ltd., Margao but when the complainant presented the said cheques through Corporation Bank, Murida Branch, both the cheques were returned dishonoured vide Memo dated 13-11-2002 on the ground that the funds were insufficient. The complainant by statutory notice dated 25-11-2002 called upon the accused to pay the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- covered by the said cheques within a period of fifteen ...

Travel Force Vs. Mohan N. Bhave and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)BC390; 2007(2)BomCR399; 2007(3)MhLj339

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is complainant's revision against the Order dated 17-3-2006 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji.2. The parties hereto are referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint.3. The complainant claiming to be a division of M/s Hede Consultancy Co. Ltd., prosecuted the accused for bouncing of a cheque bearing No. 339472 dated 10-8-2000 for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/-. It appears from the complaint that by letter dated 26-9-2000, the accused had requested the complainant to forward the fixed deposit receipt against the payment of Rs. 12,00,000/-. The complainant had presented the said cheque for payment but was returned by bank with remark that the payment was stopped by drawer and this was by Memorandum dated 22-9-2000. The complainant thereupon served a notice upon the accused dated 4-10-2000, calling upon the accused to pay the said amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- which was returned unclaimed and the accused having failed to comply wit...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dhanlaxmi Re-rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard the learned JDR. The respondents are called absent. The Revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad where in he has set aside the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) imposed under Section 11AC since the duty has been paid in full much in advance before issuance of show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) while relying upon the various decisions including CCE, Delhi-III, Gurgaon v.Machino Montell (I) Ltd. as set out in para 6 of the impugned order rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue since he has found no substance in it. Still aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is in appeal.2. I have gone through the impugned order. The respondents herein are manufacturers of CTD bars. On the basis of the intelligence received that the assessee was evading central excise duty by way of clandestine clearances, the Central Excise Officers visited the factory on 17-4-2002. The search of the Mill wa...

i.i.T. Investrust Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Mum.)1037

1. The following grounds have been raised by the assessee in this appeal, which read as under: 1. The CIT(A) erred in treating the loss of Rs. 53,22,770 as a speculation loss as per Explanation to Section 73. 2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the attribution of the amount of Rs. 33,34,903 as proportionate disallowance of expenditure in respect of share trading activities and therefore, increasing speculation loss.2. Briefly stated the facts are these : The business of the assessee is that of a stock broker as well as dealing in shares. The P&L a/c showed loss of Rs. 53,22,770 under the head "Trading in securities". In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause as to how such loss should not be considered as speculative loss in terms of the provisions of Explanation to Section 73 of the IT Act, 1961 (Act). In response to the same, the first contention of the assessee was that the nature of transactions in shares was not speculative in terms of Section...

Shri Anna Durai and Dilli Ganpati Devendra Vs. A.N. Roy, Commissioner ...

Court: Mumbai

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 read with Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, challenges the detention order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihanmumbai, under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 (for short MPDA Act), against the detenu Shri. Anna Durai @ Dilli Ganpati Devendra, resident of Lakshmi Nagar Society, near Railway Track, Shankardeo Bus Stop, Mahul Road, Mumbai 400 074, by treating him as a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the said Act. The order was served on him on 1.1.2006 and he was taken under detention on that date. The order was approved on 17.1.2005 by the State Government whereas the reference to the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the MPDA Act was made on 5.1.2006. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 14.2.2006, it was considered by the Competent Authority on 15.2.2006 and the order of co...

Tulsiram Rangwala Trust a Trust Registered Under the Bombay Public Tru ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR9; 2007(1)BomCR122; 2007(1)MhLj561

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the demand notice and the order of confirmation of the said demand passed by the respondents-authorities in respect of the property being Plot No. 216, BBR Block No. 2, Shalimar, Marine Drive, Mumbai having area of 1300 sq.ft. (the premises) on the foundation that the petitioners have changed the use of the said premises without prior permission from the office of the Collector, Mumbai City District. 2. The Government leased out the said premises to one Shri Irani in the year 1939 for 99 years. The lease rent initially fixed was Rs. 7442/-per year for first four years and thereafter Rs. 9922/-per year. The building on the said plot consists of ground plus five floors. The plot and the building called 'Shalimar' was acquired by Shri Nathumal in the year 1942 for Rs. 3,50,000/-. The leasehold rights thereafter vested in his son Shri Tulsiram Nathumal, who in turn assigned his rights to the present petitioner No. 1-Tulsiram Rangwala Tru...

Jagannath Gopala Gaidhani and anr. Vs. Minister, Urban Development, Go ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR735; 2007(1)MhLj688

V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking an appropriate relief, order or direction quashing the acquisition of their plot of land, admeasuring 20 x 30 metres from land bearing Gat No. 1037 situated at village Palse, District Nashik by the respondent and alternatively for a direction directing the respondents to give employment to petitioner No. 2 in Sinnar Municipality.2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are as under:3. The petitioners are farmers who own agricultural land bearing Gat No. 1037 situated at village Palse, District Nashik. Petitioner No. 2 is the elder son of petitioner No. 1 and Shri Sanjay Gaidhani is the younger son of petitioner No. 1.4. Respondent No. 6 was in need of land for construction of a Jackwell. Sometime in the year 1999, a meeting of the villagers was called in order to explore the possibility of acquiring the land by consent of the parties particularly because the land was required to over...

Adam Mohmad Darwajkar and ors. Vs. Appa Daud Darwajkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR740

Sathe S.R., J.1. Appellants, the original plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 6 and 7 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ghadingaj in Regular Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1997 whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiffs possession of the suit land was set aside. For the sake of convenience hereafter the parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:The suit land described in detail in paragraph 1 of the plaint was originally owned by one Kelkar. According to plaintiff his father Mohammed Darwajkar, took the said land as a tenant and as per the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereafter referred to as BTAL Act) he became owner of the said land. Mohammed died in the year 1979 leaving behind sons plaintiffs 1 to 4, original defenda...

Press Trust of India Employees Union and anr. Vs. Press Trust of India ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR259; 2007(1)BomCR682; (2007)2LLJ163Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. These proceedings are directed against an order passed by the Industrial Court on September 7, 2006 upon two revision applications, one by the employer and the second by the workman against an order passed by the Labour Court on a complaint of unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court has affirmed the finding of the Labour Court to the effect that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary enquiry was not perverse. The Industrial Court while allowing the revision application of the employer, came to the conclusion that the Labour Court was in error in holding that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge of misconduct that was proved. The punishment of discharge has consequently been affirmed.2. The workman in the present case who is the Second Petitioner before the Court was a senior Correspondent employed since 1986 with the Press Trust of India. On November 3, 1998 a communication was issued...

Ashok Toraskar Vs. Alka Ashok Toraskar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR224; 2007(3)BomCR967

Kakade P.V., J.1. The unsuccessful defendant husband in Matrimonial Petition No. 65/99 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Mapusa dated 6.3.2003, decreeing the divorce in favour of the plaintiff wife under Article 4(4) of the Law of Divorce as applicable to the State of Goa. It was directed that the custody of the minor Amit Toraskar be given to the plaintiff till he attains majority with direction that the plaintiff shall maintain the said Amit till he attains majority. It may also be noted that the order in respect of the child is not challenged, but the order of divorce under Article 4(4) is the only subject-matter of this appeal.2. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.The respondent-wife did file the matrimonial petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery as contemplated under Article 4(2) and (4) of the Law of Divorce. The plaintiff wife came with a case that her marriage was sol...