Mumbai Court September 2006 Judgments

Fancy Rehabilitation Trust, a Trust Registered Under Provisions of Bom ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)ILLJ1073Bom

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Trust, registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Petitioners activities commenced in 1974 and after 1990 the petitioners activities are in the field of rehabilitation of the physically handicapped persons and other less fortunate people. Petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Trustee of petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 3-a Private Limited Company had given a contract to petitioner No. 1 for house keeping. In February 2003, the respondent No. 3 discontinued part of the services rendered by petitioner No. 1. but again gave them a contract in April, 2004. There is some dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 3 about the outstanding amount payable in a sum of Rs. 1,43,000/- since April 2004 till May, 2006. Respondent No. 3 has now discontinued the contract with petitioner no. 1. Petitioner No. 1 for the purposes of house-keeping activities had engaged 8 persons and of them two are deaf and dumb, o...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Through Its Deputy General Manager Vs. Shri ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR800

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The respective respondent No. 1 in all these petitions filed separately 38 U.L.P. Complaints under Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as MRTU Act) for declaration that their employer M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra has indulged in unfair labour practice falling under item 5 and item 9 of Schedule IV thereof by not making them permanent in service and by engaging the juniors and other employees in their place. These complaints have been registered as Complaint (ULPN) Nos. 416 to 438 of 2004, 440 to 451 & 454 of 2004, 22/2005 and 26/2005. The learned member of Industrial Court has disposed of all these complaints by common order on 25th November 2005 and while partly allowing the complaints, gave declaration that employer has indulged in unfair Labour practice under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV and directed employer to give confirmation to all complainants under Clause 4-C o...

Novartis Ag Basle Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Bom)113; [2006]287ITR409(Bom)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant herein is a company registered under the laws of Switzerland. The appellant had held some 40,50,000 shares of an Indian company named Clariant (India) Limited. During the assessment year 1998-99, it transferred this entire lot of shares and claimed the capital loss of Rs. 43,29,28,296. This claim of the appellant has been disallowed. The matter was carried up to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant by its judgment and order dated April 15, 2004. This has been done on the ground that according to the Revenue the appellant was not entitled to indexation under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the said Act' for short) and, therefore, was not eligible to rely on Section 55(2)(b)(i) of the said Act. For not paying the advance tax in time as claimed by the Department, penal interest has been levied and that has been upheld by relying upon the two judgments of the apex court in CIT ...

Rohinton Faredoon Deolaliwala Vs. Vanita S. Valecha and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR554

Oka A.S., J.1. The facts of these Writ Petitions and contentions which are raised by the petitioner in these petitions are identical and therefore, a reference is made to the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 2546 of 2005. The petitioner is an accused in a private complaint filed by the first respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned Magistrate issued process on the complaint. A revision Application preferred by the petitioner challenging the order issuing process has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to notice dated 17th June, 2004 and submitted that the notice has been issued by M/s. S.P. Valecha and Associates. He submitted that M/s. S.P. Valecha and Associates are not the complainants in every complaint. He submitted that there is no specific demand in the said notice and there is no indication in the said notice as to whom payment should be mad...

Umesh Bondre Vs. Wilfred Fernandes

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom29; 2007(1)ALLMR791; MANU/MH/1085/2006

P.V. Kakade, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful defendant against the judgment and order passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa decreeing the respondents-plaintiffs suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction against the defendant.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the par-tics Perused the record.3. Respondent/plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s. Jesuwil Travel and Tours situated in Laxmi Apartments at Candolim and also an agent for different airlines. His wife is maintaining a public communication centre at the said premises. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant approached one John Daniel alias John Tejpur and he was in search of a premises for restaurant. Therefore, defendant took him to one of his relatives by name Surendra Kandolkar, who owned a property at Candolim beach. Said John had to carry out the construction and the expenses were to be deducted from the lease amount. Said John on condition that he should be entitled to run ba...

Rajendra B. Choudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2007)BC650; 2007CriLJ844

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Petitioner has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. in Criminal Case Nos. 91/1999, 92/1999, 762/1999, 763/1999 and 3299/1998 tried separately by adopting summary procedure, by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar. Learned Magistrate has imposed separate sentence of imprisonment and fine in each of these cases. The petitioner has filed present petition for a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently as envisaged by Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code').2. Brief resume of the relevant facts necessary for the decision of the petition is that the petitioner had cordial relations with Digambar Bhaurao Yeole (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') for about four to five years prior to the transaction between them. The complainant retired from the service and received retiral benefits. As the petitioner was in financial distress, he approached the compla...

Purushottam Maniklal Gandhi Vs. Manohar K. Deshmukh and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR404

Chavan R.C., J.1. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No. 2 Nagpur in Complaint Case No. 82/1997, the complainant has preferred this appeal.2. The complainant approached the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Nagpur with a complaint of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on the following facts. The complainant and the accused had cordial relations and were acquainted with each other. The complainant therefore wanted to deposit his savings with the accused and accordingly made deposit sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 12.12.1990, Rs. 10,000/- on 4.1.1991, Rs. 28,000/- on 12.2.1991 and Rs. 12,000/-on 5.4.1991. The complainant was in need of money and, therefore demanded its return in the month of March, 1996. Since the amount deposited with the accused was to bear interest and the accused represented to the complainant that he will be able to refund the amount only in December, 1996, the co...

G.B. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

(i) whether drawer locks and door closing machines imported by the appellants herein required import licence, being consumer goods; 2. We have heard both sides. We find that it is not the case of the department that none of the exemptions contained in the proviso under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 applied to the goods under consideration, which were of various manufacturers and shipped from a supplier at Dubai. The only reason contained in the impugned order for rejecting the transaction value is that it appeared too low to the assessing officers (who have considerable market experience, awareness and expertise in assessment.) The case is squarely covered in favour of the importers by the Apex Court decision in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd v. Commissioner , which has held that, transaction value has to be accepted, unless any of the exceptions contained in the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 are applicable. Since...

Jt. Director of Income Tax Vs. Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc.,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)298ITR87(Mum.)

1. These four departmental appeals involving common issue are disposed off by this common order The department has raised the following ground of appeal, which is common in respect of the four appeals: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CAT (A) erred in holding that interest Under Section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not chargeable in the case of the assessee, on the ground that in the case of a non-resident assessee, all sums chargeable to tax are liable to deduction of tax at source Under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The relevant facts are that the assessee company has been treated by the assessing officer as represented assessee of M/s Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. SE Asia/UK/USA/Brazil Under Section 163. The aforesaid company received various payments on which tax was deductible at source as per the provisions of Section 195 of the Act. The assessee company filed return of income in respect of assessment year 98-99 declaring...

Rekha Lakhi Totlani Vs. the Sind Brahma Sikhya Sammelan and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR485; 2006(6)BomCR626

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner has impugned the seniority list by which respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8 have been placed senior to the petitioner. The respondent No. 9 in fact is junior to the petitioner who stands at Sr. No. 7 in the seniority list at Exh.A to the petition. The petitioner therefore, can have no grievance to the seniority of respondent No. 9.The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 14.06.1976 and was possessing post graduate decree of M.Sc. The petitioner obtained diploma in higher education in the year 1980 and B.Ed. in the year 1991. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 to 8 joined after the petitioner and in these circumstances, they ought not to have been placed senior to the petitioner.2. Rules have been framed under the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Regulation Act, 1977 which are known as Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as Rules).Rule 12 deals with seniority. It enjoins on the management ...