Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Premier Limited, (Formerly) Premier Automobiles Ltd. a Company Incorpo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR12; [2006]133CompCas687(Bom); [2006]71SCL153(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. Common question of law involved in all these writ petitions is, whether, an appeal against the adjudication orders passed by the Assistant Director/Deputy Director of Encroachment under the repealed provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA' for short) read with Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ('FEMA' for short) is maintainable before the Special Director (Appeals) appointed under FEMA. In all these cases, the Special Director (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals as not maintainable. As the issue involved in all these cases is common, all these petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. FERA was enacted in the year 1973 inter alia for the conservation of the foreign exchange resources of the country and proper utilisation thereof in the interests of the economic development of the country. FERA was repealed and replaced by FEMA with effect from 1st June, 2000. Section 49 of FEMA reads as follows:4...
Bank of India Vs. B.C. Mody Exports P. Ltd and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC717; 2006(5)BomCR22; [2007]138CompCas756(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs. 5,67,332.51/-together with interest thereon at the rate of 19.5% p.a. and to enforce the hypothecation and/or charge created by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs to secure the repayment thereof. Defendant No. 1 is the borrower. Defendant No. 2 who is a director of defendant No. 1 is sued as a guarantor. The hypothecation/charge is not pressed.The Plaintiffs' case:2. In or about November 1974 the Plaintiff granted defendant No. 1 a Demand Cash Credit facility upto a limit of Rs. 2,50,000/-. In respect thereof defendant No. 1 executed various documents including a Demand Promissory Note, a Deed of Hypothecation and a letter of Lien and Set off all dated 28.11.1974. The same had been tendered and marked in evidence as Exhibits P1, P2 and P3 respectively. The documents were completed in all respects when they were signed by the defendants. In March 1975 the Cash Credit facility was enhanced to Rs. 5 lacs in respect whe...
Shirish Madhukar Dalvi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR421; (2006)203CTR(Bom)621; [2006]287ITR242(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-I, Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short) dt. 28th July, 2003.The facts:2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is dealing in landed properties. He is regularly assessed to income-tax. Action under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) for search and seizure was conducted at the residential and business premises of the appellant from 11th June, 1998 and concluded on 15th July, 1998.3. The AO issued notice dt. 6th July, 1998 calling upon the appellant to file return for the block period. However, appellant disputes the receipt of the said letter/notice. The appellant admits to have received a letter dt. 17th Sept., 1998 from the AO reminding him to file a return for the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98 which referred to the earlier notice dt. 6th July, 1998 though incorrectly and stated that the appellant did not file return for the block period in response to the said notice ...
Rameshwar S/O Ramaji Rewatkar and ors. Vs. Dilip S/O Tulsiram Rewatkar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR836; 2006(44)MhLj292
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard finally by consent.2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 28-2-2006 in W.P. No. 838 of 2006. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition which was filed challenging the orders dated 30-5-2005 and 27-1-2006 passed by the Additional Collector Nagpur and Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, respectively, allowing the application under Section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter called as the said 'Act') filed by respondent No. 1 herein and thereby had declared the appellants to have been disqualified to continue to be the members of Gram Panchayat Dodki.3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the appellants were elected in November 2003 as members of Dodki Gram Panchayat. The bills relating to the Panchayat taxes came to be issued on 1-8-2004 and the same were served upon the appellants on 3-8-2004. In terms of the bills, the last date for payment of...
Priyanka Prabhakar Jage and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR416; 2006(6)MhLj238
Gokhale H.L., J.1. Heard Mr. Gangal in support of this petition which is filed by some 50 students who took admission to the Diploma in Teachers Education (D.Ed.) Course in by Respondent No. 6 Training College under the management of respondent No. 5. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they were admitted to that course during the academic year 2004-05 when this institution did not have the recognition of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). Their forms for the examinations for the first year were permitted to be received under the orders passed by a Vacation Judge on 4th November, 2005 and they were permitted to give examinations. Now their prayer is that they be permitted to give the second year examination which is the final examination and that the respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 be directed to receive the forms and they may be permitted to give the final examination. It is submitted on their behalf that they took admission to this course under the impression th...
Sopana Rambhau Musale and anr. Vs. Baban Bhagwanta Khade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR448
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Mr. Tapkir waives notice for the respondent. As a short question is involved, the application is heard finally, forthwith, by consent.3. This application takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ghodnadi, dated 22-12-2005 below Ex. 1 in Regular Darkhast No. 14 of 2004.4. Indeed this is an unfortunate case where the petitioners having succeeded in getting the decree in their favour, are not in a position to enjoy the fruits of the decree having failed to institute execution proceedings within the specified time.5. Briefly stated, the petitioners (original defendants) look loan from one Mr. Bhangwanta Jijaba Khande, the father of the respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Bhanwanta was a money lender and against the loan offered to the petitioners, security of the ancestral land bearing Gut No. 147 admeasuring 7 Hectares 65 Acres from village Mauje Mjhase, ...
United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sarsabai W/O Kishanrao Sontakke and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1986; [2006(111)FLR648]; 2006(5)MhLj630
A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is an appeal by Insurance Company. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed claim petition under Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. After receiving notice from the Court, Insurance Company deposited Rs. 87,980/-. According to the Insurance Company, this calculation was done on the basis of claim furnished by the employer-respondent No. 3-who has shown the salary and allowances drawn by the deceased to be Rs. 1,000/- p.m.2. The case has proceeded on admitted facts as to:(i) accident,(ii) age,(iii) accident arising out of and in the course of employment.The point of dispute is the monthly income/salary. The workman claimed it to be Rs. 2,000/- p.m. while the employer disputed the same.3. The trial Court found that the salary of the workman was Rs. 1,800/- p.m. and calculated the amount of compensation to be Rs. 2,08,952/-. After deducting the amount that was deposited, the trial Court found that the applicants were entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,09,...
Rajendra Ramsing Ghorpade Vs. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)MhLj714
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard by consent finally. 2. By consent the matter is remanded on following facts and reasons:(i) The petitioner complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) against the respondent.(ii) While passing the order of conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.) Chalisgaon, has ordered sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default the accused to suffer further R.I. for two months. Admittedly, there is no whisper about the compensation as contemplated under Section 357(3), Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner therefore, has challenged the present order to the extent of not awarding any compensation by the J.M.F.C. Undisputedly, the appeal filed by the accused against the same order is pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon bearing No. 114/2005.3. In view of the observations of the A...
Jai Mahendra Thakor and ors. Vs. Aarti Dinesh JaIn and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: II(2006)DMC731
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 294 of 2001 registered at Bhoiwada Police Station, Dadar under Sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC as also the case arising from the said Cr bearing No. 156/PW of 2004 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Bhoiwada, Dadar, Mumbai. Petitioner No. 1-husband and respondent No. 1-wife are present in Court. The respondent-wife has filed an affidavit dated 9.6.2006 stating that she has ended all her disputes with the petitioners and they have decided to take divorce by mutual consent. In fact, the divorce by mutual consent has already been obtained. I perused the Consent Terms annexed to the petition (Exhibit-I). The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. : 2003CriLJ2028 , in similar situation in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment held thus:14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(204)ELT35(Bom)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. Perused record.2. The order to the Tribunal revolves around the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, which are reproduced herein below for immediate reference:.There is no dispute that the deemed credit taken by the appellant is less than the actual duty paid on the yarn contained is the grey fabrics. The actual quantity of duty of yarn contained is reflected in the Central excise invoices issued by the spinning units to textile mills. Therefore the plea of the appellants that they are entitled to actual credit is required to be accepted.3. It is needless to mention that an alternate plea can always be taken before the Tribunal in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. : [1998]229ITR383(SC) .4. Having said so, turning to the alternate plea entertained by the Tribunal, which as stated above, revolves around the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. We, therefore, do n...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »