Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Dr. Anil Nandkishor Tibrewala and anr. Vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)BC6; 2007(3)BomCR941; [2006]133CompCas645(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Other respondents, though served, have not put in appearance. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioners had moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the RDB Act). The application which was filed on December 1, 2005, was numbered as Misc. Application No. 52 of 2005 for rectification/modification/correction of the order dated September 15, 2005. It is the case of the petitioners, that the matter was posted for orders on December 7, 2005, however, the Presiding Officer ceased to hold the office and no order was passed on the same.3. We may now refer to a few facts:Respondent No. 1 had taken out proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal being O. A. No. 305 of 2002 by application dated September 18, 2002. Respondents Nos. 2 to 10 herein were the respondents before the Tribunal. By order dated September 15, 2004, the Debts Recovery Trib...

Ramchandra S/O Pandurang Dalal Vs. Municipal Council and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR233; 2007(2)BomCR849; 2006(6)MhLj227

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks to quash the orders dated 6th September and 27th September of 2003 issued by the respondents No. 1 and 3 respectively and further to declare the petitioner to be senior to respondent No. 2 and consequently for directions to the respondents 1 and 3 to prepare the seniority list.2. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are employed as the assistant teachers in the school run by the respondent No. 1 under the name and style Municipal High School, Pavni. The petitioner had been in the employment since 1975, whereas the respondent No. 2 was appointed on 27-6-1983. The appointment of the respondent No. 2 was as a trained teacher. The appointment of the petitioner since 1975 was in the capacity as untrained teacher. However, the petitioner acquired training qualification, i.e. B.Ed. in the year 1983. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had appeared for the B.Ed. Examination...

Vfc Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balu Ganpat Sakpal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR688; 2007(3)BomCR334; 2006(6)MhLj535

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 25th April, 2005 passed by the Industrial Court in revision against the order dated 27th August, 2004 passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with backwages from 1st September, 1998 to 22nd of April, 2002, with continuity of service.2. The petitioner-company has a factory at village Baska, Taluka Halol, District Panchmahal and had its administrative and commercial office in Mumbai. The respondent was employed as a peon in the petitioner's office at Mumbai. The petitioner decided to shift administrative and commercial office including accounts department from Mumbai to its factory at Baska, District Panchmahal and put up a notice to that effect on the notice board on ...

Mesco Airlines Ltd. Vs. Abhay Meheshwari

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006(111)FLR560]; (2007)1LLJ176Bom

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Rule2. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard counsel for the parties.3. By this petition, petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated September 6, 2005 passed by the Labour Court Mumbai dismissing the petitioners' preliminary objection about its jurisdiction to entertain and try the dispute.4. The petitioner is an Air Transport Company possessing licence to operate 'non-scheduled air transport service' granted. by the Director General of Civil Aviation under the Aircraft Rules, 1937. The respondent who was employed as an air craft maintenance engineer by the petitioner resigned his services with effect from December 26, 2001. According to the respondent, six months salary due to him was not paid by the petitioner. He therefore applied to the Labour Court constituted by the Government of Maharashtra (for short 'the State Labour Court') under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') for recovery of the salary of the six...

Laukik Developers Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)105ITD657(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2002-2003 is directed against the order of the CIT(A). The only issue in this appeal is regarding the validity of deduction Under Section 80-IB(10) of the I.T. Act, 1961 claimed by the assessee on its profits from the project at village Gajbandhan, Dombivali, District Thane.2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Developing and Construction of houses. The assessee has undertaken a housing project during the relevant period at village Gajbandhan situated within the municipal limits of Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC). The assessee filed its return of income disclosing total income at Rs. Nil, which was arrived at after claiming deduction Under Section 80 IB (10) of Rs. 8,74,331/-. The claim of the assessee Under Section 80 IB (10) was rejected by the Assesing Officer mainly on two grounds i.e. the project contains of some commercial area of 3143 S...

Dy. Cit Vs. Metro Exporters Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 1997-98 is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The ground of appeal No. 1 of the revenue is as under: I. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding the action of the assessing officer in reopening the assessment proceedings under Section 148 being not in accordance with law without appreciating that the income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 46,94,202 for the assessment year 1997-98 got under assessed by way of omission to increase the book profit by the share of loss of the partnership firm debited to profit and loss account while computing the total income as per the provisions of Section 115FA of the Income Tax Act.The learned Departmental Representative submitted that reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act was done in this case within 4 years of the completion of the assessment on the basis of information received by the assessing ...

Sushila Shantilal Jhaveri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Bom)246; [2006]286ITR428(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents in spite of service.The facts:2. This petition is directed against the (order) under Section 273A of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) dt. 15th Oct., 1992 passed by the CIT, City VII, Mumbai whereby the application under Section 273A came to be rejected on the following considerations:In this case the assessee could not get any relief in respect of additions of Rs. 3,54,915 except those of Rs. 47,200 added in the name of Shri S.G. Jhaveri and S.C. Jhaveri, HUF. She could not prove that the jewellery seized belongs to various people as claimed by her. In appeal before the CIT(A) she has not agitated many of the additions against which the AC) initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, the disclosure could not be said to be full and true. Assessee's case is not covered by Section 273A of the IT Act, 1961. 3. The dissection of the aforesaid operative part ...

Prakash Vishwanath Khute and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR245; 2007(2)BomCR408; 2006(6)MhLj295

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. By the present petition, the petitioners challenge the award dated 4-11-2003 declared under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'. The award is in relation to acquisition of the land which was sought to be acquired under the Notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act on 5-4-2001 for the purpose of construction of 7 to 11 km. Canal of Pentakli Medium Irrigation Project. The challenge is on the ground that the award is bad in law in view of the provisions of law comprised under Section 11-A(1) of the said Act, since it is declared beyond the period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act.3. The undisputed facts relevant for the decision are that the Notification under Section 4 of the said Act seeking to acquire the land of the petitioners was issued on 5-4-2001. The declaration under Section...

indranath S/O Raosaheb Thorat Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR279; 2006(6)MhLj140

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties and rule is made returnable forthwith, by mutual consent.2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus or directions in the nature of mandamus, thereby seeking cancellation of appointment of respondent No. 5 as returning officer and also for quashing and setting aside the election programme declared by respondent No. 5, of respondent No. 6-Society. Further directions are sought to respondent No. 4 Registrar (Cooperative Societies) to appoint an administrator for respondent No. 6-society.As is evident from the name, respondent No. 6 is a supervisory union and a co-operative society. According to the petitioner, the term of the present managing committee of respondent No. 6 has come to an end on 3-4-2006. The managing committee is empowered to appoint returning officer for the purpose of holding elections of the next managing ...

Titan Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom336; 2006(6)ALLMR237

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioner a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, carries on business as manufacturers and sellers of watches and their components. The respondents had effected seizure of watches belonging to the petitioner, contending that they have been sold in violation of the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, which have been framed under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 which hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act. We may now gainfully refer to the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as the Enforcement Act and the rules framed thereunder which shall be referred to as the Enforcement Rules. By the letter dated 18th June, 2002 the petitioners were informed that the Rules are applicable to the petitioners products and if the petitioner did not compound the case at the Depart...