Mumbai Court September 2006 Judgments

Hareshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Shree Mal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR309; 2007(2)BomCR201; 2007(1)MhLj681

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 22nd August,2005 rendered by Schoolol Tribunal, Solapur in Appeal No. 405/2005 whereby reinstatement of respondent No. 1, in the school of petitioners, along with incidental benefits is directed. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is educational trust of which petitioner No. 2 is a school. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 Smt.Rajshree was appointed as a trained teacher by the petitioners. Her appointment was continued from time to time. She alleged that she had acquired right of deemed permanency and continuously rendered unblemished service from June 1988 till midst of June, 2004. She further alleged that she was prevented from signing the muster roll w.e.f. 15th June, 2004 and thereby her services were illegally terminated. She filed an appeal against alleged illegal termination of services. The Schoolol Tribunal has allowed her appeal and directed the reinsta...

Leben Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)294ITR1(Mum.)

1. In the circumstances and facts of our case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in: (a) sustaining deduction under Section 80HHC at Rs. 26,67,213 instead of giving necessary direction to the AO to allow the duly claimed deduction under Section 80HHC at Rs. 38,07,772 by resorting to the provision of Section 80-IA(9) despite the fact that the provisions of Section 80HHC and Section 80-IA are independent of each other and the assessee company has not claimed the total deduction under both the sections in excess of the gross total income. (b) sustaining non-eligibility in respect of scrap sale of Rs. 15,130 by considering the same as not derived from the manufacturing activities of the assessee company and consequently reducing the allowable deduction under Section 80-IA.2. The ground No. 1(b) has not been pressed before us and therefore, the only issue which remains for our consideration relates to the interpretation of Section 80-IA(9) of IT Act, 1961 (Act). Briefly stated the facts are the...

Lachhiram Chudiwala, H.U.F. Through Its Karta/Manager Shri T.L. Chudiw ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR431; 2006(6)BomCR559

D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Judgment and order dated 31.8.1996, rendered by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay, by which Misc. Notice No. 84 of 1996 in R.A.E.Suit No. 57/106 of 1992 taken out by the respondents-defendants, hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants', has been allowed. The suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff', has been decreed in the absence of the defendants and their advocate vide judgment and order dated 17.10.1994, and this judgment has been set aside by the impugned order dated 31.8.1996. 2. The factual matrix, that is relevant and necessary to deal with the questions raised by the plaintiff, is as follows. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendants for a decree of eviction in respect of 400 sq.ft area out of the total area in their possession, admeasuring 1600 sq.ft., on the first floor of 195, Kalbadevi Road...

The State of Maharashtra Through Sdpo Vs. Bharat Baburao Gavhane and 1 ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ552

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The Appellant-State of Maharashtra has preferred this Appeal challenging the judgement and order passed by the learned Special Judge, MCOC Act, Nashik in MCOC Case No. 2 of 2002. By the Judgement and order dated 2nd September 2002 the learned Special Judge has allowed an application preferred by the respondents-original accused for transfer of the case under Section 11 of MCOC Act, 1999 (for short referred to as 'MCOC Act). 2. In the view of learned Judge the application preferred by the accused, prior to framing of charges, is capable of being allowed because there is no material to arrive at a prima facie conclusion that the accused can be prosecuted under the MCOC Act and more particularly Section 3 thereof. 3. This appeal invokes appellate powers conferred upon this Court vide MCOC Act. Earlier, it was filed as a Revision Application but later on finding that the order under challenge is appealable, the same was converted with leave as the instant appeal. ...

Pitamber Kanhayalal Khattar and anr. Vs. Sadanand Harishchandra Honawa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)MhLj816

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant/original petitioners. None present for the respondents, though served.2. By this review petition, the applicants are seeking review of the order dated 29th January, 2003 passed in the Writ Petition No. 7410 of 2002. The review is sought on two grounds. One is that a new and important fact has been discovered by the applicants which relates to the sale of the property by the respondents to a third party, and secondly that the penalty which could have been imposed under the Stamp Act could not have been more than double the amount of stamp duty to which the documents could have been normally subjected to and in the case in hand, the penalty has been imposed 10 times of the said stamp duty, and both the points were not considered by this Court while disposing of the petition in the order dated 29th January, 2003.3. As regards the discovery of new and important fact, which is stated to be relating to the conveyance...

Bakulabai Rama Naikwadi Since Deceased Parubai Sampat Yadav and ors. V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR589; 2007(3)MhLj344

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, on 20th March, 1991 in the Revision Application No, MRT/NS/IV/3/89 filed by the respondent against the concurrent orders passed by the lower authorities, namely, by the Sub Divisional Officer, Satara, in Tenancy Appeal No. 69 of 1987 on 4th January, 1989 and by the Additional Tahsildar, Karad, on 30th July, 1984 in Tenancy Case No. 227. By the impugned order, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, while setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities, had remanded the matter to the Additional Tahsildar, Karad, for fresh inquiry.2. The petitioner herein is the landlady and the respondent is the tenant in relation to the suit land situated at village-Pal, Taluka-Karad, District-Satara. Originally the land belonged to Smt. Bakulabai Rama Naikwadi, the landlady, who was a widow on the tiller's day i.e. 1st April, 1957. She expired on 28th December, 1968. She left...

Baba Hari Mohite and ors. Vs. Dinkar Ramchandra Sapkal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR676; 2007(3)BomCR835

Bhosale D.B., J.1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have taken exception to the order dated 10.8.1994, by which an application at Exhibit-86 filed by respondent No. 1 under Order 22, Rule 3(1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Cri. P.C'), seeking dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 278 of 1981 as abated in its entirety, has been allowed. The petitioners are the original plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and 6, whereas the respondents are the original defendants, hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners' and 'the respondents' respectively. Insofar as the original plaintiff No. 5 Banubai Hariba Mohite is concerned, she would be referred to by her name.2. The petitioners and Banubai Mohite instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 278 of 1981 for declaration, injunction and also for mandatory injunction seeking directions to the respondents to remove the obstruction in enjoyment of their right of way and use of the door, as shown i...

Latha Uchil Vs. Chairman and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR51; 2007(3)BomCR959

Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1792 of 2005 joined the respondent No. 2 School on 15-06-1987. Petitioner's qualifications are B.A. B.Ed. The petitioner's initial appointment was on probation and by order dated 15th June, 1989 petitioner was made permanent. The respondent No. 2 is an unaided primary school, recognised by respondent No. 5 and petitioner was teaching in the primary section of the school. She was promoted as Head Mistress of primary section with effect from 14th June, 1999 and was functioning as Head Mistress till 1st July, 2004 and according to her she was forced to resign from the said post at the instance of respondent No. 3. In the course of academic year 2004-05, there were 8 teachers including petitioner and there were 8 divisions. There was no teacher who was on temporary basis. On account of respondent No. 3 claiming to act as trustee and interfering in the administration of the school, differences have arisen betwee...

Bhagchand Masicharan Dhilor Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ2215

J.N. Patel, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. Ld. A.P.P waives service.3. This petition has been filed by the convict Bhagchand Masicharan Dhilor through Jail challenging the order passed by the Superintendent of Nasik Road Central Prison for deducting his remission and denying him remission by ordering his removal from the Register of remission permanently.4. It is a case of the petitioner that he has been convicted in Sessions Case No. 87 of 1986 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon for having committed offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment and order dt. 4-3-1987, the Trial Court sentenced the petitioner to suffer imprisonment for life. While the petitioner was undergoing imprisonment, he applied for furlough which was sanctioned by the respondent competent authority and communicated to the Superintendent of Nasik Road Central Prison vide letter dt. 24-5-1996. Accordingly, the petitioner came to be released on furlough leave for two weeks on 27-5-1996...

West End Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These appeals belonging to same assessee, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the record and other applicable legal position.3. First, we shall take up revenue's appeal in ITA No. 7131 /Mum./03 for assessment year 2001-02 which is directed against the order dated 31-7-2003 of Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,89,634 being the expenses on replacement of carpet and linen which are in the nature of capital expenses." 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee pointed out that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by various orders of the Tribunal in assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and placed copies of the Tribunal orders for these years on record.6. The learn...