Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Shrikrishna Shetye deceased by LRs. Vs. JustIn Acacio D'Souza and Ors. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR395; 2006(4)MhLj860

ORDERA.P. Lavande, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 13-4-1998 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 33/93 by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Judgment and Order dated 30-8-1993 passed by the Additional Rent Controller at Mapusa in Rent Case No. Rent/ARC/54/84 allowing the application dated 24-5-1984 for eviction of the original petitioner. During the pendency of this petition, the original tenant expired and his legal representative has been brought on record. Similarly, the respondent No. 1, the original landlord also expired during the pendency of this petition and his legal representative has been brought on record.2. The original applicant-Justino Acacio D'Souza had filed an application for eviction of his tenant/opponent Shrikrishna Shetye in respect of the premises bearing House No. E-6-105, situated at Ansabhat Mapusa, Bardez, Goa which was leased to him on a monthly rent of R...

Shailesh S/O Sudhir Joglekar Vs. Nirmal Kumar S/O Gulzarilal Jain

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR279; 2006(6)BomCR325; 2006(4)MhLj756

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Bhangde, learned Counsel for the Applicant. Respondent though served, none appeared for the Respondent.2. Civil Revision Application is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th February, 1999, passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, Nagpur, whereby the application moved by the Respondent/non-applicant under Order 9, Rule 13 and Under Section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure is allowed and ex parte decree passed in Civil Suit No. 558/91 was set aside. Similarly, against the appellate order dated 12-6-2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, whereby the appeal filed by the applicant came to be dismissed.2-A. Mr. Bhangde, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the original landlord and the non-applicant was the tenant in the suit premises i.e. shop block No. 3, bearing House No. 293 situated at West High Court Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur. The applicant/landlord on 5-12-1990 filed application befor...

Bahujan Vikas Education Society and anr. Vs. Mrs. Vidya Devi W/O Abhim ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR281; 2006(44)MhLj124

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.2. This is a Petition by the Society who is aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Director of Education communicated by letter, dated 23rd April, 1991, that the Management was responsible to pay the salary and allowances of Smt. Vidya Devi Raut who is present respondent No. 1, and consequential order issued by Education Officer, dated 23rd April, 1991, informing that salary and allowances towards period of unemployment of Smt. Vidya Devi Raut be paid by the Management, and if not paid, the arrears be recovered from the Non-salary Grants payable to the School.3. The brief background of the case, which needs to be adverted to, is narrated hereinafter.4. Present respondent No. 1 was appointed by the petitioner-Management as Assistant Teacher. Her services were terminated by notice, dated 2nd April, 1986, as the approval for appointment was for only one year. After six months from the termination, the Education Officer modified the...

Pradeep Yogeshwar Nimje Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR275; 2006(6)BomCR239; 2006(44)MhLj45

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard by consent of parties for final disposal.2. The appellant herein has challenged the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (CORAM : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) in Writ Petition No. 6045 of 2004. It is seen that Writ Petition was filed on 15-12-2004 with main prayer (B) as to final reliefs which is as follows:B) That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the order passed by Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, City-1 dated 24-4-2003 appended to the present petition at Annexure-E and also declare the voter list published by respondent No. 4 to be null and void and direct that only 23 members, who were as on 31-3-2001 were entitled to participate and vote in the election and direct that re-election be held within a period of 45 days from the date of order by appointing Election Officer for that purpose.3. In the Writ Petition No. 4065/2004, the orders dated 24-4-2003 issued by the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur, and...

Avinash J. Mahale and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3123

ORDERS.P. Kukday, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have impugned order dated 3rd December, 1997 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, dismissing the application for discharge.2. Briefly stated, relevant facts are that Madhukar, Nanasaheb, Avinash, Ravindra and Bharat (since deceased) are real brothers. They were living with mother Dhudkabai at Chalisgaon. Eldest brother Madhukar is a teacher at Bhadgaon. Nanasaheb is also a teacher at Bhadgaon. The petitioner No. 1 Avinash is an Engineer and had taken up a job with 'Al Ain', in United Arab Emirates, from 1976. He purchased a plot at Sane Guruji Nagar in the year 1978. He got married in the year 1981. His wife was shuttling between the two countries namely, UAE and India. She used to be with her husband for some time and for some time she used to be at chalisgaon. Younger brother Ravindra, is a tailor, and has a tailoring shop at Chalisgaon. Youngest brother Bharat (since deceased) was running a grocery shop ...

S.K. Networks Company Ltd. Vs. Amulya Exports Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom15; 2007(3)BomCR458

ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the applicants, original defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and prayed as under:Clause (a) - That the above suit be dismissed for want of jurisdiction against the third and fourth defendants.Clause (b) - In the alternative the suit be dismissed as the same is barred by law of limitation.2. By an order dated 24th January, 2006 in Chamber Summons No. 1391 of 2005 taken out by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 for revocation of leave granted by an order dated 24-4-20.04 under Clause XII of Letters Patent was dismissed and observed as under:5) Firstly according to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 themselves there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 based on this bill of lading. In the circumstances, the above clause regarding jurisdiction cannot operate between the plaintiff and defendant No. 3/defendant No. 4.7) The plaintiffs case inter alia is that false boarding dates had been deliberately put on the bill of la...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gandhar Oil Refinery (i) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Mum.)630

1. These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against two orders of CIT(A) dt. 20th April, 2001 and 21st May, 2002 at Mumbai and arises out of assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.The relevant assessment years are 1999-2000 and 1998-99.2. We have heard both the sides and have also perused the materials placed on record and applicable legal provisions.4. Ground No. (i) is related to the inclusion of the amount of Rs. 17,63,875 of unutilised Modvat Credit in the value of closing stock. In this regard, the learned Counsel pointed out that the issue was covered in favour of assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. learned Departmental Representative fairly accepted the same.Therefore, ground No. (i) is rejected.5. Ground Nos. (ii) to (vi) deal with disallowance made under Section 43B of the Act. The amount of Rs. 32,122 being the employer's contributions to PF was disallowed by the AO as the sa...

Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)101ITD103(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) on a solitary ground that the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the amount written back on forfeiture of debentures as income exigible to tax thereby adding a sum of Rs. 14,19,000 to the total income of the assessee.2. Having heard the rival submissions and from the careful perusal of the record we find that the assessee has issued 38 lakhs debentures, 13.5 per cent non-convertible debentures of Rs. 150 each. During the previous years relevant to the impugned assessment year, 62,250 non-convertible debentures (NCDs) were forfeited due to non-payment of call money. This can be re-issued at the option of the assessee. On account of forfeiture of debentures, the amount paid earlier on such debentures have been written back. In "Schedule D" of the Audited Accounts, the assessee credited an amount of Rs. 14.19 lakhs being the amount written back on forfeiture of debentures...

Vyomit Shares, Stocks and Vs. the D.C.i.T.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106ITD408(Mum.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.7.2000 of CIT(A)-XLI, Mumbai. The first ground of appeal is as under: In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and particularly having regard to diverse submissions on record, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting claim of the appellant for grant of depreciation of Rs. 23,75,000/- w.r.t. cost of stock exchange card acquired, owned and used by the appellant as plant in the conduct of its business of sharebroking.2. The assessee is a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and the simple question involved in this appeal is as to whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation allowance Under Section 32 of the IT Act on the cost of the BSE membership card acquired by the assessee. The claim of the assessee has been disallowed by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the AO's finding. The ld. CIT(A) has referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sitalpur Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT 49 ITR 160...

Mhaisarali Ramzanali Khan Vs. Shri D. Sivanandan, Commissioner of Poli ...

Court: Mumbai

V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Through this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu has impugned the order of detention dated 21st April, 2005 passed by respondent No. 1 Shri D. Shivnandan, Commissioner of Police, Thane. By the said order, the detenu came to be detained under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act). The detention order alongwith grounds of detention dated 21st April, 2005 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 25th April, 2005.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on three C.Rs i.e. C.R. No. 284 of 2004 of Vartaknagar Police Station under Sections 395, 397 of IPC read with Sections 3, 25(a), (b) of Indian Arms Act; C.R. No. 436 of 2004 of Chembur Police Station under Sections 395, 397, 452, 427 of IPC read with Sections 3, 2...