Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Prakash S/O Vasudeo Tare Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj244

K.J. Rohee, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks to quash Criminal Case No. 17/1992 pending against him before Special Court, Amravati.2. The petitioner is in the employment of Accountant General (A and E) II Maharashtra, Nagpur, as a Senior Division Accounts Officer. During 1982 the petitioner was deputed as Divisional Accountant in the office of Executive Engineer, Upper Wardha Canal Division No. 3, Dhamangaon, District Amravati. Shri S. K. Gite (accused No. 1) was the Executive Engineer and Shri M. B. Pande (accused No. 2) was the Divisional Store Keeper during the said period.3. Charge-sheet dated 30-8-1992 was filed by the respondent before Special Court, Amravati on 3-11-1992. It was registered as Special Criminal Case No. 17/92. Shri Gite is accused No. 1, Shri Pande is accused No. 2 and the petitioner is accused No. 3. It is alleged that the accused persons mad...

Hiraman Ratan Baisane Vs. Election Returning Officer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj324

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The short question raised in this Petition is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional District Judge, Dhule was justified in ordering recounting of votes cast in the Zilla Parishad Election held on 30-11-2003 from the 34, Methi Constituency3. In all eight candidates including the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 had contested the Zilla Parishad Election held on 30-11-2003 from the 34, Methi Constituency of Sindkhed Taluka in Dhule District. The votes cast in the said election were counted on 2-12-2003. As per the election results declared by the Returning Officer (R.O.) on 2-12-2003 the petitioner had polled 3806 votes, the respondent No. 3 had polled 3792 votes and other candidates had polled votes lesser than that. Accordingly, the petitioner who had polled highest votes was declared to have won the election...

New India Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Shankar B. Bangera and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR706; [2007(114)FLR451]; (2007)IILLJ68Bom

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The respondent joined the services of the petitioner, which is a Co-operative Bank, on 1st October, 1985. On 6th October, 1992, he was posted at the Mulund branch of the Bank. After resuming duty for one day, the respondent remained absent without leave from 7th to 24th October, 1992. He resumed duties on 28th October, 1992, and submitted a leave application. For a short while, he was asked to report at the branch at Golibar and was thereafter required to report for duty at the Mulund Branch on 9th November, 1992. After working at the Mulund branch from 11th to 14th November, 1992, the respondent remained absent without intimation from 16th to 28th, November, 1992. He resumed on 30th November, 1992, and submitted a leave application. On and from 2nd December, the respondent remained absent without leave and without any intimation to the employer. The employer addressed letters to the respondent on 5th December, 1992, 15th February 1993, 14th June 1993 and 26th Ju...

Crp Control Panel (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned CIT dated 19-6-2003, passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Briefly stated the facts are these : The assessee filed its income tax return for assessment year 2001-02 declaring total income of Rs. 39,120 after claiming deduction of Rs. 2,73,754 under Section 80-IB of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act and finally the assessment was completed on 16-12-2002 by determining the total income at Rs. 64,220 after allowing deduction of Rs. 2,48,652 under Section 80-IB. The assessment record was examined by the learned CIT who, after examining the record, was of the view that the assessing officer failed to make proper enquiries in respect of the claim of the assessee under Section 80-IB. Accordingly, he assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 by issuing show-cause notice dated 2-52003. After considering the reply o...

Petrosolv India Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR704; 2006(203)ELT42(Bom)

ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The 2nd petitioner herein is a partner of the 1st petitioner-Company. The petitioners have filed the present Petition to challenge the order dated 13th July 2006 passed by the Settlement Commission rejecting their Application dated 20th July 2006 filed under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have effected fraudulent export. The goods concerned were seized on 30th November 2005 and thereafter this Application was filed before the Settlement Commission on 28-4-2006. The Settlement Commission has rejected the Application mainly on the ground that it is premature which can be clearly seen from paragraph 4.6 of the impugned order. The Commission has observed in paragraph 6 thereof that the Applicants are free to make fresh applications, if they so desire on receiving a Show Cause Notice issued by the Revenue ind...

Anjuman Hami-e-islam and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Bom)72; [2009]310ITR37(Bom); 2006(6)MhLj654

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 before this Court is a Public Trust while petitioner No. 2 is its President. It appears that later on Joint Charity Commissioner by order dated 7-7-2000 appointed ad hoc body to administer said Trust and said body is joined as petitioner No. 3 as per orders of this Court dated 8-1-2002. All 3 respondents are officers of Union of India in its Income Tax department. The petitioners challenge order dated 29-7-1992 passed by respondent No. 1 Commissioner of Income Tax in proceedings under Section 132(12) of Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'Act'. In short their contention is that they are exempt from provisions of Income Tax Act because of exemption available to Public Trust in view of Section 10(22) of Act and hence, in appeal under Section 132(12), respondent No. 1 was duty bound to record a finding about this status of petitioners and as that has not been recorded, said order dated 29-7-1992 is liable to be quashed and set aside....

Suryabhan Dhundaji Bawane Vs. Bhulabai Chandrabhan Bawane and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom25; 2006(6)ALLMR570; 2006(6)MhLj807

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The original defendant has challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in this Second Appeal. This Court while admitting the Second Appeal on 2-12-1993 has treated the additional grounds raised in the memo of appeal by way of amendment as substantial questions of law between the parties. No question of law as such has been formulated. After hearing both the counsel, the substantial question of law which arise for consideration is whether the suit as filed was time barred in view of provisions of Article 64 of Indian Limitation Act and whether the appellant/defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession?2. The original plaintiff was brother of present appellant/defendant. The present respondents are his legal heirs. The suit filed vide Regular Civil Suit NO. 3 of 1986 was for claiming the relief of possession of field Survey No. 89/1 admeasuring 10 acres 33 Gunthas of Mouza - Dhamak. The plaintiffs contended that out of th...

Thakkar Tobacco Products Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. Shri V.S. Sejpal, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have paid the entire amounts of duty before passing of the order-in-original and hence, he prays for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount. He, further, states that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) without going into the grounds of appeal and stating that the same are fresh grounds and not liable to be considered under Section 35A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001. He further submits that the grounds taken in the Appeal Memorandum itself cannot be deemed as fresh grounds and the same are required to be considered by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In view of the fact that the entire duty amounts have been deposited, the requirement of pre-deposit of the penalty amounts is waived and with the consent of both sides, the appeals are taken up for decision. I find that the lower appellate ...

MorgaIn Inc Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

No one is present on behalf of the appellants. Heard the learned DR. I find that the appellants have filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, rejecting their rebate claim. As this Tribunal cannot entertain their appeal directly against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the same is rejected as not maintainable....

Aakash Stone Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Mum.)128

1. Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the respective orders of CIT(A). As common issue is involved in both the appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of polished and finished marble slabs, tiles, table tops etc. from imported and indigenous rough marble blocks. The factory of the assessee-company is located at Silvasa. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 30th Nov., 2000 declaring total income at 'nil' after claiming deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,54,33,566. The said deduction was claimed in respect of industrial undertaking located in an area specified in the Eighth Schedule, i.e., Silvasa. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 5th Feb., 2002.Subsequently, the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on ...