Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Bhumiputra Commerce Bank Vs. P.V.P. Products Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR431; 2006(4)MhLj646

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit is filed for the recovery of sum of Rs. 29,62,400/- with further interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till realisation. The suit arises on the following facts.2. The defendant is a public Limited company in the name of M/s. Premier Vegetable Products Ltd. Sometime in/or about September/October 1977 the defendant approached the plaintiff bank known as M/s. Patel Holdings Sendirian Berhad, Penang (Malaysia) for the facility of negotiation of documents pertaining to one particular shipment proposed to be made through India. The said M/s. Patel Holdings Sendirian Berhad got the said shipment effected and drew a Bill of Exchange bearing No. 1610/77 dated 14-10-1977 from the defendant company. The said Bill of exchange was payable on its order 45 days from the sailing date of the vessel S.S. 'Dong Moon' for sum of U.S. $ 255.968 equivalent to Rs. 20,47,744/-. This ...

indrakant Shankar Mambro Vs. Rosario Boventura Fernandes

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR820

Britto N.A., J. 1. This is defendant's second appeal arising from R.C.S. No. 90/1989/C.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit.3. Before this Court, there are two facts which are not disputed. First, that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the property known as 'Bajarpet', surveyed under No. 9/7 of Village Assonora, and second, that what was let out (to let also means to allow) by the plaintiff to the defendant was a parcel of land of the said property admeasuring about 4.75 x 3.50 metres, adjoining the public road.4. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant was allowed to use the said portion of the property by virtue of Agreement of License executed on 3.10.1988, for the purpose of erecting a temporary wooden shed for selling cold drinks, for a period of two years, on payment of license fees of Rs. 100/-per month. Further, it was the case of the plaintiffs that somewhere on or about 06.05.1989, ...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhanudas Maruti Kadakne

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR730; 2007(3)BomCR483; 2006(44)MhLj374

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. Heard the learned A.G.P. for the appellants. None appears for the respondents. These two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. The facts of both the Appeals are more or less identical. The Judgments and Awards which are impugned in this Appeals have been passed by the Reference Court in a reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The respondents in the above appeals are the original claimants whose lands were acquired under the said Act. After declaration of the Award under Section 11 of the said Act, the respondents did not file any Application for reference under Section 18 of the said Act. Subsequently the respondents applied under Section 28A(1) of the said Act for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award passed by the Reference Court in the Land Reference No. 248 of 1983 and the other connected Land References. It appears that the Applica...

Apr Packaging Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants manufacture kraft paper and paperboard classified under subheading No 4804.90. The tariff rate of duty up to 29-2-2000 was 16% but they were availing exempted rate of 8% under Notification No. 5/99 since they were using unconventional raw material. For clearances on the budget day 29-2-2000, they undertook to pay enhanced rate of duty, if any, under Rule 224(2A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We find that the tariff rate of duty remained unchanged at 16%, notification 5/99 was replaced by Notification No.6/2000 under which the effective rate was reduced to zero but the quantity was restricted to 210 MT for March 2000 and 3500 MT for the full financial year. We also find that the appellants have paid 8% duty for the budget day clearances on 29-2-2000.2. In view of the fact that there has been no increase in the duty rate, the duty demand made on the appellants in excess of 8% is not sustainable. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and allow th...

Shri D.J. Mehta Vs. I.T.O.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)104ITD527(Mum.)

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) on various grounds, which are as under: 1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs. 2,72,771/- claimed as a deduction from the remuneration of Rs. 3,48,000/- received by the assessee from a registered firm. 2.a) The CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,54,758/- as unexplained investment Under Section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. i. The investment in jewellery had been disclosed under the VDIS, 1997. ii. Certificate under Clause 68(2) of the VDIS was issued, based on the disclosure made, iii. Part of the jewellery disclosed under VDIS was sold on 2^nd January, 1997 to pay the VDIS tax and necessary entries recorded in the books of accounts. 3.a) The CIT(A) erred in disallowing Long Term Capital Loss aggregating to Rs. 4,20,750/- arising on sale of the jewellery disclosed under VDIS, 1997 on the ground that the source of acquisition of the gold orna...

Bharat S. Shah Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)101ITD200(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) on a ground that the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,08,500 on account of short-term capital gains.2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of authorities below and documents placed on record.3. Brrefly stated, during the year under account, the assessee sold warrants of Reliance Petroleum Ltd., which he acquired by virtue of his holding of bonds. As per the scheme for the issue of bonds, each of the bond-holder was entitled to two warrants. These warrants entail the assessee to subscribe for the shares of Reliance Petroleum Ltd. Accordingly, the assessee was entitled for 1,82,200 such warrants. Out of these, the assessee acquired 50,000 warrants by purchasing 25,000 bonds-cum-rights from market @ Rs. 31.50 each. The assessee sold all the warrants during the year for Rs. 2,64,504. For the purpose of working capital gain from the lot of 50,000, he adopted cost of ac...

Madhuvihar Co-op Hsg. Socl. and ors. Vs. Jayantilal Investments,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR726; 2006(3)BomCR36

K.J. Rohee, J.1. The judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2004, in L.C. Suit No. 4385/1997, passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay gave rise to these two appeals. First Appeal No. 786/2004 has been preferred by the original plaintiffs, whereas first appeal No. 989 of 2004 has been preferred by original defendant No. 1.2. The facts which are not in dispute for the purposes of the appeals can be stated thus: . Plaintiff No. 1 Madhu Vihar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') is registered on 20/1/1993 under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Plaintiff No. 2 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as the 'flat purchasers') are some of the members of the said Society. Defendant No. 1 M/s Jayantilal Investment (hereinafter referred to as the 'Promoter') is a partnership firm carrying on the business as builder/developer. Defendant No. 2 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and is an authority under The Maharashtra Regional an...

Vinod J. Agarwal Vs. Chief Officer, Mira-bhayander Municipal Council,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom254; 2006(3)ALLMR484; 2006(4)BomCR356; 2007(1)CTLJ216(Bom); 2006(4)MhLj126

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None present for the respondent No. 3, though served.2. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking relief in the nature of declaration that the order of forfeiture of the earnest money passed by the respondent-council on 9-6-1994 under the letter of the same date is null and void and further for consequential relief in the nature of writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents to refund the said amount of the earnest money to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum.3. The undisputed facts relevant for the decision are, that the respondent-council invited offer for the appointment of an agent for collection of the octroi duty by publication of a Notice in the daily 'Loksatta' dated 25-4-1994, for a period from 1-6-1994 to 31-5-1995. The last date for filing the sealed covers for the offer of appointment as an agent for the octroi col...

Sandeep Ramesh More, Vs. Narayan Deoba More,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom253; 2006(3)BomCR30; 2006(4)MhLj486

S.B. Mhase, J.1. Heard. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of both sides.2. The petitioners have filed Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 2001 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malegaon seeking partition and separate possession of the share of the petitioner which they inherited on the death of one Mr. Ramesh who was the husband of the petitioner No. 3 and father of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent Nos. 1 & are the brothers of said Ramesh while the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are the sisters of said Ramesh. The suit property is joint family property in possession of the respondents. After filing of the suit, application Exhibit-5 was submitted under Order-XXXIX rule-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requesting the Court that during the pendency of the suit the respondent original defendants shall be prohibited from transferring the suit property to any third person and/or prohibited from creating any encumbrance on the suit property. Another application at Exhibit -7 was f...

Ananda and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2230; II(2006)DMC387

Kshitij R. Vyas, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred by appellants (original accused Nos. 1 and 3) challenging the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 6th August 2004, passed by the learned ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Session Case No. 58 of 2002, convicting them for the offence, punishable under Section 302, read With Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The learned Judge, however, acquitted the appellants for the offences, punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge however, acquitted the original accused No. 2 Mahav Ananda Gaikwad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the prosecution case briefly be stated as under:Deceased, Aruna married the appellant No. 1, Ananda abou...