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.
Amol Kishor Mule and anr. Vs. Vishwanath Rajaram Shahande and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Bom55; 2006(6)ALLMR254
A.H. Joshi, J.1. The appellants herein had filed a suit for specific performance. While granting the decree in favour of the appellants, the Trial Court gave a direction in paragraph No. 4 which consisted an interest clause which has aggrieved the plaintiffs. Said order clause in paragraph No. 4 reads as follows:4. The plaintiffs are hereby directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 95,000/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. from January 1995 till the date of deposit, within one month in Court. On effecting the transfer in the name of plaintiffs, this amount shall be released in the name of defendants. 2. The appellants proceed on admitted fact that the sum ordered to be paid i.e. the sum of Rs. 95,000/- is due and payable by them. They, however, claimed that there is no liability to pay interest. This denial is based on the contents of the agreement to sell. Xerox copy of agreement of sale Exh. 29 is on record. It is seen that it being admitted, original is not insisted.3...
Jyoti Laxman Konkar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Bom)5; [2007]292ITR163(Bom)
N.A. Britto, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (Act, for short).2. Heard Mr. S.V. Pikale, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant/assessee, and Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, the learned Government advocate on behalf of the respondent/Revenue.3. The assessee had filed a return on 25th Nov., 1999 for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 declaring an income of Rs. 7,40,510. Not satisfied therewith, the AO carried out a survey under Section 133A of the Act and during the survey found that there was a discrepancy in stock to the tune of Rs. 18,28,706 which was brought to the notice of the assessee and the assessee filed a revised return disclosing additional income of Rs. 18,28,706, and the AO found that the said income was suppressed by the assessee but the said revised return was finalized but at the same time a notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to impose penalty was issued to the assessee and which was disposed of by order dt. 25th May, 2001 an...
Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Mangalam Drugs and Organics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)(208)ELT95Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard the ld. DR. Respondents are called absent, despite serving notice.2. The issue involved in this appeal is that wrong availment of Modvat credit on the basis of supplementary invoices issued.3. On the scrutiny of the monthly return ER-I filed by the assessee for the month of September, 2001, it was noticed that the assessee has taken credit on the basis of goods received under supplementary invoices as detailed hereunder: 4. As per the provisions of Rule 7(l)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/now Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, manufacturer of inputs was allowed to issue supplementary invoices in case of payment of additional amount of excise duties subsequent to the clearances excepting where the additional amount of duty becomes recoverable from him on account of any non-levy or short-levy by reason of fraud or suppression of fact or contravention of any provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade payment of duty.5. The Central Excise officers HPIU, H...
Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC302
1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner of Customs, vide which he has vacated show cause notice issued to the respondents, Revenue has preferred the present appeal. [i] The respondents herein M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. filed five bills of entries for clearance of the goods described as "Non-alloy 100% Re-Rollable scrap consisting of Plate Cuttings" and claimed duty free clearance under Notification No. 204/92 against advance licence. [ii] The examination of the goods covered by the said bill of entry by the Special Task Force revealed that the goods consisted MS/SS pipes which were serviceable in nature. Out of the total 23 containers, four containers were released as they were found to contain re-rollablc scrap, as declared in the bill of entry. [iii] In respect of remaining 19 containers, a view was entertained that the same contained old and used seamless pipe, which were serviceable in nature. As such, 100% examination of the said containers was under...
Thacker and Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)106ITD141(Mum.)
1. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The issue involved in these appeals, is purely legal one, i.e., whether, disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), can be made against the dividend income exempted under Section 10(33) of the Act in the course of assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these : The return for the assessment year 1998-99 was filed on November 3, 1998, which was processed under Section 143(1) and intimation was issued on June 18, 1999. The time-limit for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act expired on January 3, 2000. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under Section 147 after recording the reasons and issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act on June 1, 2001. In the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 16,90,135 under Section 14A against divide...
Rajeshree Rajaram Ghude and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR462; 2006(44)MhLj400
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Ms. Jyoti Chavan in support of this petition. Mr. Sonawane, A.G.P. appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Thorat appears for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.2. The petitioners, herein are 37 ladies who claim to be working at different villages in Shahapur and Murbad Talukas of Thane District for a number of years as Balwadi Sevikas. The petitioners are aggrieved by the denial of the respondents to appoint them or to convert their services from those of Balwadi Sevikas into those of Anganwadi Sevikas. They point out that an advertisement was issued for the appointment to the post of Anganwadi Sevikas on 11th January, 2005 by the concerned officers in-charge of Child Development Project of Murbad. They appeared for those interviews but having been denied the conversion to the posts of Anganwadi Sevikas, they point out that this is being done on the basis of a Government Resolution which has been issued subsequently on 9th February, 2005. Amongst other prayer...
C.A.D. Civilian Workers' Union and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR256; 2006(5)BomCR901; 2006(5)MhLj503
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By both these Petitions, employees working in the defence Department of Union of India have challenged action of respondent No. 1 State of Maharashtra and respondent No 2 Profession Tax Officer in denying them exemption from payment of profession tax and the petitioners rely upon provisions of Section 27-A(a) of Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Traders, Callings and Employment Act (16 of 1975), (hereinafter referred to as Profession Tax Act) and its interpretation by Division Bench of this Court in bunch of Petitions i.e. Writ Petition Nos. 303, 511, 1909, 2937 of 1988 and Writ Petition Nos. 1424 and 616 of 1989 decided on 4-12-1990 at Nagpur B.S. Raut and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported at 1992 Mh.L.J. 360 for this purpose. The petitioners state that they themselves were petitioners in earlier Petition and hence the controversy stands concluded. The respondents have not disputed that the earlier Petitions were filed by these very petitioner...
Maharashtra Rajya Shikshan Sanstha Mahamandal Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR139; 2006(5)MhLj746
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri B. G. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri A. B. Choudhari, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri V. R. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 3.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.3. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a registered association of managements of recognized schools in the State of Maharashtra. The power of granting permission to start new Primary, Secondary or Higher Secondary School is vested in the State of Maharashtra-respondent No. 1 as per Secondary School Code. However, this Court by its judgment in the case of Gram vikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors reported in : AIR2000Bom437 issued mandatory directions to be followed by the State Government while granting permission to start new schools. It is contended that respondent No. 3 vide impugned order dated 16-5-2006 granted permiss...
NijamuddIn Mohammad Bashir Khan and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4266; 2006(5)MhLj690
J.N. Patel, J.1. The learned single Judge of this Court while dealing with the application filed by the accused seeking their release on bail on the ground that the prosecution has failed to submit charge-sheet under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code within the stipulated period i.e. within 60 days from the date of their arrest, was required to make a reference to the larger bench and this is how the matter has been assigned to us.2. The question which is referred to the Division Bench can be culled out from para 7 of the order which reads as under:7. There is, therefore, a clear conflict on the issue whether the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(i) is attracted or the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) are attracted in respect of the decisions of two learned single Judges of this Court on the one hand and the one learned single Judge of this Court on the other hand. Therefore, in my view, it would be appropriate if the matter is referred to the Division Bench. Neither the l...
Shantabai W/O Jagannath Jaiswal and ors. Vs. Anandibai Wd/O Satyanaray ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR991; 2006(5)MhLj748
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Heard.2. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.3. The petitioners are plaintiffs in the trial Court. They filed Special Civil Suit No. 230 of 2004 in the Court of II Joint C.J.S.D., Aurangabad for partition and separate possession. The plaintiffs led evidence on a document which is said to be a registered Will Deed, dated 16-7-2001. By an application dated 21-9-2005, the plaintiffs prayed for exhibiting the 'Will Deed'. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the trial Court filed say to the said application and resisted the prayer made by the petitioners. By an order dated 30-9-2005, the trial Court postponed the decision on exhibiting the said document by observing that there would be no obstruction to proceed with the matter and the issue could be decided even at the stage of final arguments. This order is impugned in this petition.4. The learned Counsel for the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »