Mumbai Court June 2006 Judgments

Suresh Kanji Solanki Vs. Dilip Govind Baria and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)BC423

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. None appears for the applicant. Heard Mr. Shitole, learned APP for the respondents.1.1 The applicant has prayed for leave to file appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 26.7.2005. by which the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act'). I perused the judgment and other material on record. It is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that Rs. 1,60,000/- were borrowed by the respondent-accused from time-to-time during the period between February-March, 2002. The evidence in that regard is not consistent as seen from the observations made in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment. According to the defence version, the cheque and other documents were virtually snatched from him by force for which a police complaint was lodged. The NC report lodged by the respondent is a part of the record. Even the alleged transaction ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Metal Tubes (India)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of copper tubes/coils by redrawing process for which they brought the raw material i.e. copper tubes from M/s. Shri Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. The Central Excise officers visited the factory premises of respondents (M/s. Metal Tubes) and on physical verification they found 617.50 Kg. of copper coils lying in the factory premises in packed condition without entering the same in RG-1 register. Shri Panchal, partner of M/s. Metal Tubes in his statement admitted that the goods were not entered in the RG-1 register with an intention to clear the same clandestinely without payment of duly. He further admitted that these coils were manufactured out of copper tubes purchased from one Shri Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. who have cleared the same without any invoice and without payment of duly. This fact was also admitted by Shri Chhaganlal Malikchand Shah, Director of M/s. Shri Ram Tubes Pvt.Ltd. in his statement recorded und...

Amitabh Bachchan Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

The appeal by the assessee and the cross objection by the revenue is for the assessment year 1995-96.2. The effective ground urged by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in directing the assessing officer that the sum of Rs. 18 crores paid as per agreements dated 10-1-1995 and 11-2-1995, is revenue expenditure, which should be allowed by spreading the deduction equally over the period of ten years, being period of tenure of the agreements. According to the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have allowed the entire amount as deduction for the assessment year under consideration. Further, the assessee is objecting the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anup Engg. Ltd. v. CIT and the decision of the Hon'blc Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT 3. Coming to the cross objection by the revenue, it is directed against the order of t...

ion Exchange (India) Ltd. Vs. Paramount Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR545

D.K. Deshmukh,J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the Award made by the Arbitrator directing the petitioner to pay certain amounts to the respondent. An objection to the maintainability of the petition before this Court is raised by the respondent. The objection raised by the respondent is that after the Award was made on 5.5.2005, an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act was filed by the respondent in a Court at Baroda and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, this petition will not be maintainable before this Court. It is submitted that Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) lays down that with respect to the arbitration agreement if any application under part- I of the Act has been made in the Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement...

Vikas Kamalakar Walawalkar Vs. the Deputy Salt Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom265; 2006(4)ALLMR405; 2006(4)BomCR527

D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff in the suit prays for a decree of declaration that the purported termination of lease/grant in respect of salt land effected by order at Exh. W made by the Defendant No. 1 is illegal, wrongful and contrary to law. A further decree of declaration is also claimed declaring that the lease/grant of the salt land in terms of the supplemental Deed of Lease read with Deed of Lease is valid, subsisting and binding on the Defendants. The Plaintiff is also claiming a decree of permanent injunction directing the Defendant No. 3 to make drains and sewers as would prevent the sewage water and industrial effluents flowing into the two inlets in the Plaintiff's salt land. 2. By this Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff prays for a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants Nos. 1 & 2 from acting on the order dated 1st April, 2005 and disturbing possession of the land of the Plaintiff pursuant to that order. 3. For...

Arvind Jeram Kotecha Vs. Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR134; 2007(1)MhLj497

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The Chamber Summons is taken out for the following reliefs:(a) That leave be granted to the Defendant/Decree holder to execute Execution proceedings against the Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor for recovery of the sums due to the Defendant from the Plaintiff, more particularly set out in the Execution Application under the judgment dated 22.1.1999 of the Hon'ble High Court of Justice of United Kingdom, Queen's Bench Division passed in Case No. 1990 K 528 and the final costs certificate dated 11.11.2004 and additional certificate dated 17.1.2005 issued by costs officer, High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division; (b) That notice under Order XXI, Rule 22(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code be dispensed with; (c) Such other and further orders and reliefs as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.2. The Chamber Summons is by the Original Defendant. It is directed against the Claimant/Original Plaintiff. 3. It is contended that the Chamb...

Sai Amrat Co-operative Housing Society Limited, a Society Duly Registe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR16; 2006(6)MhLj166

Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out for the following reliefs : (a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant No. 1 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner either by himself or through his agents and servants from entering upon the suit plot, more particularly described in Exhibit 'A' hereto and be further restrained from in any manner putting up any work of construction of additional structure or demolishing any part of the compound wall or any other structure in any manner notwithstanding any plan for amendment of the original sanctioned layout plan was passed by the appropriate authorities i.e. by Defendant No. 2, 3 or 4 as the case may be; (b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order and injunction directing the Defendant No. 1 to complete the pending work in respect of buildings belonging to the Plaintiffs which work required to be ...

Mrs. Tarla N. Morjaria, Vs. Mr. BipIn Hiralal Shah and Mrs. Pushpa Bip ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR399; 2006(4)BomCR492; 2006(5)MhLj516

Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out for a direction against the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 9,653/- per month by way of mesne profits/ compensation for the illegal use and occupation of the suit premises in Flat No. 13 situate at Krishna Building, 6th Khetwadi Lane, S.V.P. Road, Mumbai. An injunction has been sought against the Defendants from transferring, encumbering, alienating, disposing of or creating third party interests in respect of the suit premises. A further prayer for the appointment of the Court Receiver in respect of the suit premises for taking possession of the same from the Defendants and handing it over to the Plaintiffs is also made. 2. When the matter was heard for ad-interim reliefs, the Defendants were injuncted from transferring, encumbering, alienating, disposing of or creating third party interests in respect of the suit premises. Thereafter, on 25th April 2003, after pleadings were complete in respect of the Motion...

Noy Vallesina Engineering Spa a Corporation Organized and Existing Und ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR510(Bom); 2006(5)BomCR155

D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This petition has been filed seeking enforcement This petition has been filed seeking enforcement This petition has been filed seeking enforcement of Foreign Award dated 1.2.2000 and 22.10.2001, under Section 47 read with Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are as under:- The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Laws of Italy. It is involved in the business of setting-up and construction of plants for production of Synthetic fibers, Polymers and ascorbic acid. The respondent is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The respondent in the year 1994 entered into negotiations with a Company called 'Enco Engineering Chur AG of Sagenstrasse 97, 7001 Chur, Switzerland. On 30.1.1995 the respondent entered into four related agreements with Enco for setting up ascorbic acid Acid plant in India. The four agreements a...

The Goa Foundation, Being a Registered Society, Registered Under the P ...

Court: Mumbai

Kshitij R. Vyas, C.J.1. The first petitioner being a Society and the second petitioner who is the Secretary of the first petitioner have approached this Court for appropriate reliefs invoking P.I.L. jurisdiction of this Court initially with the prayer directing respondents No.1 and 2 to place on record the sanction, if any, granted to respondents No.1 and 2 including the minutes of all the meetings of the Eco-Development Council, the Eco-Control Committee, Inter-Ministerial Committee, Planning and Development Authority, the Town and Country Planning Board, the Goa State Committee on Environment in relation to the illegal floors and encroachment and after going through the legality of the said permissions, quash and set aside the same; for an order quashing the PPDA Order No.PDA/T/7471/118/92 dated 20th April, 1992 and further for an order of demolition of the constructions made pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 16.9.1993 in Misc. Civil Application No. 176/93. The petitio...