Mumbai Court June 2006 Judgments

Secretary/Rector, Hyderabad Sindh National College Board and ors. Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR905; 2006(44)MhLj403

ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The first respondent was appointed on probation as a Principal of the High School and Junior College conducted by the petitioners at Ulhasnagar with effect from 3rd September, 2001. On 6th July, 2002 the first respondent was arrested by the Anti Corruption Bureau on the charge of having accepted a bribe of Rs. 18,000/- through his sister for giving admission to a student. He was released on bail on 8th July, 2002. The first respondent was suspended from service in exercise of the powers conferred by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules 1981. On 29th July, 2002, a notice was received by the management from an advocate representing the father of a student from whom an amount was allegedly collected by the first respondent otherwise than in accordance with the rules as a condition for the grant of admission. It was alleged in the letter that the first respondent had collected money similarly from 22 other students. A copy of the notice having been...

Kavita Rajesh Naik (Rathod) Vs. Rajesh Wamanrao Naik (Rathod)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR442

Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. Aggrieved by dismissal of petition for divorce, original petitioner No. 1 wife has preferred this appeal.2. Appellant No. 1 Smt. Kavita and respondent-Rajesh were married on 22nd February, 1994 at Aurangabad in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Then Rajesh used to reside at Yewatmal, a District place, along with his grandparents, two brothers and two sisters. His parents were residing at village Tiwasa, which is at a distance about 20/25 K.Ms, from Yewatmal. After the marriage, appellant Smt. Kavita resided with Rajesh at Yewatmal for some period of about a couple of years. Out of the wedlock, the couple was blessed with a son-appellant No. 2 Tejas somewhere in 1996. The, spouses could not pull on well with each other and fell apart after 3/4 years from birth of the son. Since the time of matrimonial discord Smt. Kavita is residing with her parents at Aurangabad along with her minor son.3. Briefly stated, case of the appellant No. 1 Smt. Kavita is that she ...

Manjula Ramlal Barot Vs. Iswarlal P. Barot and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3779

ORDERV.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Magistrate in C.C. No. 47/S/84 whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the application filed by the petitioner seeking direction from the Magistrate for the production of a document from the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 - original accused.Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:2. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 347, 348, 386, 395, 506(ii) read with Sections 120-B, 34 and 114 of the IPC.3. It is alleged in the said complaint that the respondents forcibly took possession of the premises where the complainant was residing with her husband, after obtaining a letter signed by petiti...

Laya Binaykumar Pandey Vs. Medical Council of India and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj438

F.I. Rebello, J.1. All these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is the same. The petitioners are prosecuting their M.B.B.S. Course in colleges affiliated to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as University), having been admitted to a medical course. It is the case of the petitioners that they have passed their first and second M.B.B.S. examinations. They have also passed third M.B.B.S. (Part-I) examination. They appeared for third M.B.B.S. (Part II) examinations conducted by the University in December, 2005, the results of which were declared on 18-2-2006. In the result declared, some petitioners were declared to have failed in the subject 'General Surgery' and some petitioners in the subject 'General Medicine'. The mark-sheets were displayed on the website of the University and the copies of the same were also provided to the students. It is the case of the petitioners that on perusal of the mark sheets, it would...

ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai Vs. Capt. H.R. Vinayak

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]9SOT322(NULL)

ORDERG.C. Gupta, J.M.The short issue requiring our adjudication in this case is whether or not the allowances received by the assessee - who is a commercial pilot working for Indian Airlines Ltd. while he is away from his normal place of duty in connection with the flying duties, are exempt under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and if these are held to be exempt, to what extent exemption under section 10(14)(1) can be granted in the absence of actual evidence of expenditure incurred by the assessee.2. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1990-91 and the assessment order in question is framed under section 144 read with section 147(a) of the Act.3. Grounds of appeal as taken by the revenue are as follows :1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to allow exemption of allowances received on duty abroad under section 10(14)(ii) to the extent of 50 per cent of the al...

Talera Logistic (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides and on finding that the jurisdiction of Commissioner, Pune to levy/recover Service Tax on this applicant is prima facie doubtful, on reading of the provision of Rule 4(2) of Service Tax Rules, as apparently the applicants do not have two or more than two centres from where the impugned services were being provided.Full waiver of the pre-deposit are ordered with stay of recovery pending the regular hearing of the appeal....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cadila Pharmaceutical

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC746

1. The Revenue is in appeal. Respondents are an assessee of Central Excise engaged in the manufacturer of Pharmaceutical products who were availing Cenvat Credit. During the course of Audit. It was found that the assessee had availed Cenvat Credit on certain ineligible goods as under: Name of capital goods S.H. under CET, 1985 ---------------------- --------------------- Laminated false ceiling 4409.00 Proceedings were initiated and two notices was issued for recovery of the credit availed for the period April 2000 to April 2001 and December 1999 along with the interest and imposition of penalty. The lower authority confirmed the recovery of the ineligible credit along with the interest, imposed equivalent to penalties, being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal with CCA who, vide its order now impugned, set aside the orders on the grounds of time bar without going into the merits of the case. The Commissioner found that the heading of the impugned goods on which credit was availed...

Gitanjali Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a solitary ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in holding that appellant is entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC of Rs. 50,13,116 only after reducing a sum of Rs. 32,88,094 being deduction under Section 80-IA as per the provisions of Section 80-IA(9A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record. From the orders of the lower authorities we find that the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80HHC at Rs. 83,01,210 which was restricted to Rs. 50,13,116 after having it reduced by the amount of deduction claimed under Section 80-IA at Rs. 32,88,094, invoking the provisions of Sub-section (9A) of Section 80-IA which was introduced by the Finance Act, 1998 with effect from 1-4-1999 by the assessing officer.This ord...

Madhukar S/O Bijaramji Sawarkar Vs. Director of Education, Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR702; 2006(5)BomCR55; 2006(44)MhLj201

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner - who is Secretary and Chief Executive Officer of the Pipla Education Society has questioned the order dt. 23-4-1990 passed by the respondent No 1 asking the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No. 3 after setting aside his termination dt. 10'th April, 1989. The facts, in brief, which are also not in dispute can be stated thus:The respondent No. 3 was Head Master of the School by name 'Vikas Vidyalaya' administered by the petitioner Institution. He was appointed on 17-3-1988 and a charge-sheet for departmental enquiry was also served upon him. Before final action in the departmental enquiry could be taken, the respondent No. 1 - in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management Act') - appointed an Administrator on the said School. The Deputy Education Officer of Zilla Parishad, Nagpur by name Mr. Marathe was appointed as Administrator. The Admin...

Maria Manuela Piedade Vs. Vassant Shet Shirodkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR38

Britto N.A., J.1. This is plaintiffs second appeal arising from the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant which came to be decreed by the trial Court but which came to be dismissed by FAC (First Appellate Court) by Judgment dated 9.9.2003.2. At present, there is no dispute that the defendant entered into an agreement initially with the mother of the plaintiff dated 1.6.1981, under which, the defendant came to occupy six rooms of their house on payment of monthly compensation of Rs. 200/-. One of the conditions of the said agreement was that the agreement was for a period of even months but renewable upon execution of a new agreement, if both the parties agreed. After the death of plaintiff's mother, I the defendant executed an agreement dated) 1.3.1984 with the plaintiff. Under this agreement, the defendant was allowed to occupy; three rooms, other than those which were allowed to be occupied under the agreement t dated 1.6.1981. The compensation payable t rema...