Mumbai Court October 2007 Judgments
Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Mum.)639
1. This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-I, Mumbai, dt. 21st Nov., 2006 for the asst. yr.2003-04. The following grounds/sub-grounds of appeal are independent of and without prejudice to one another: 1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming that the long-term and short-term capital gains aggregating Rs. 3,23,83,744 on the sale of units of debt-oriented mutual funds are taxable under the head 'Business income', as against the appellant's contention that indexed long-term gains of Rs. 1,04,97,182 (Rs. 2,08,50,215 less brought forward capital loss of Rs. 1,03,53,033) arc taxable under the head 'Long-term capital gains' and gains of Rs. 2,20,201 taxable under the head 'Short-term capital gain'. 1.1 The CIT(A) further erred in holding that above referred capital gains are taxable as business income because concept of mutuality is not applicable, having failed to appreciate that appellants have offered such gains to tax on the ground that such gains are not c...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Cleaning Services Vs. Shri C.M. Patil, Member, Industrial C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR838; (2007)109BOMLR2770; 2008(2)MhLj647
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court passed in complaint (ULP) No. 316 of 1994 on 9.11.1995. By this order, the Industrial Court has held that the petitioner has indulged in an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act by not paying bonus and ex gratia to 77 employees for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The Industrial Court has directed the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amounts in accordance with Clauses 10 and 11 of the agreement dated 29.7.1993 Under Section 2(p) r/w Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order preferred the present petition. The writ petition was admitted and interim orders were passed. When the matter came up for final hearing on 4.4.2003, the petition was dismissed and rule was discharged. Respondent No. 3 was permitted to withdraw the amounts deposit in this Court pursuant to the interim orders with accrued interest. The petitioner then...
Tag this Judgment!Pramila W/O Dinkarrao TaThe and ors. Vs. Shantabai Alias Shalinibai Wd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MhLj830
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.By the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 18-7-2003 below exh. 6 i.e. Misc. Civil Application No. 122/2003, rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay of ten years, six months and nine days in filing appeal before the District Judge.Facts:2. In a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the respondents/plaintiffs i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 5/1976 a decree came to be passed on 31-3-1983 by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Chandrapur. The petitioners/defendants therein instead of filing appeal in the District Court, Chandrapur on a wrong legal advise filed the same in the High Court within the limitation prescribed for filing First Appeal in the High Court. On 16-8-1994, the High Court held that appeal lay before the District Judge and not the High Court and, therefore, the memo of appeal was returned for proper presentation. On 19-8-1994, the petitioners present...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Shankarrao Ghorpade and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MhLj578
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. Rule. By consent of the parties, rule returnable forthwith.2. Heard.The petitioners have approached to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ and/or order or directions in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No. 1 to withdraw the impugned order dated 30th March, 2007 and further to direct the respondent No. 1 to hold the elections to the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 2 for the next turn forthwith.3. The respondent No. 2 is agricultural market committee established for the market area consisting of three talukas viz. Gavathe Mahakal, Jath and Miraj from the Sangli District. It is incorporated in view of the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The market committee of the respondent No. 2 was elected as provided in Section 13 of the said Act on 4th December, 2001. The first meeting of the marke...
Tag this Judgment!Pranlal K. Doshi and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj86
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondent No. I/Municipal Corporation.2. Appellants are challenging the order passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay in Municipal Appeal No. M/14/1978 whereby appeal filed by the appellants herein challenging rateable value fixed by the respondents was dismissed and order passed by the Assistant Assessor and Collector dated 23rd February, 1978, fixing rateable value of building which was being used as a theatre at Rs. 64,215/- with effect from 1-4-1978.3. Brief facts in a nutshell are as under:Appellants are the owners of cinema theatre known as 'Central Cinema' which is situated at Girgaon, Mumbai which came to be assessed for the purpose of levy of property tax under Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act.) under Ward No. 'C at Rs. 64,215/- for the assessment year 1978-79. Previously, rateable value of the theatre was Rs. 55,100/-....
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nanuram S/O Mohanlal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj503
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioner-MSRTC has challenged the judgment and order dated 19-12-2006 passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application No. 103 of 2003 confirming the judgment and order dated 20-11-2003 made by the Labour Court, Akola, in Complaint (ULP) No. 155 of 1992.Facts:2. The respondent was working as a clerk on the establishment of the petitioner. Due to his riotous attitude during working time and during the course of departmental enquiry being conducted against one employee, he was served with a charge-sheet and a regular departmental enquiry was held in which he was found guilty and consequently on 28-2-1990 he was dismissed from service.3. The respondent filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Akola, questioning his dismissal from service. On the preliminary issue, Labour Court held that the enquiry held against the complainant was not fair and proper and evidence was laid before the Labour Court by the petitioner-employer for pro...
Tag this Judgment!Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Shr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR277; (2007)109BOMLR2536; [2008(119)FLR915]; 2008(4)MhLj324
Anoop V. Mohta, J.This is a matter about a closure of a company.1. On 24/12/2003, an application by the petitioner for closure of its Reay Road factory, Mumbai to the Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai under Section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'I.D. Act') replied by the Respondent Union. 2. On 23/03/2004 the Commissioner allowed the Company Application for closure. 3. On 25/03/2004, the respondent Union's application for Review of the order or for Reference of the matter Under Section 25(O) of I.D. Act. 4. On 05/04/2004 by an order the Commissioner of Labour referred the matter for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. 5. On 13/04/2004, in Writ Petition No. 1136 of 2004 by the Respondent Union challenged the order. 6. On 21/04/2004, the Industrial Tribunal in Ref. No. (IDA) 17 of 2004, granted interim reliefs in favour of the Union. 7. On 12/07/2004, by orders this Court while disposing of two writ petitions filed by the Petitioner (W.P. No. 1297 of 2004 i...
Tag this Judgment!Reshma G. Bhandari Vs. Yesubai H. Koli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR508; 2008(2)BomCR294; 2008(2)MhLj497
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The Petition is filed to revoke the Letter of Administration dated 15.11.2005 granted by this Court in favour of the Respondent in Petition No. 501 of 1995 filed by the Respondents.2. I have found it unnecessary to consider the validity of the grant of the Letters of Administration in favour of the Respondents, as in my view the Petitioner is not entitled to maintain this Petition.3. The Letters of Administration were granted in Petition No. 501 of 1995 in respect of the estate of one Sakharam Padman Keni (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), who died intestate in Mumbai on 6.8.1990.4. It is necessary to consider the Petitioners' connection with the deceased. The Petitioner claims a right in the estate of the deceased ultimately through the brother of the predeceased wife of the deceased.5. The wife of the deceased, Sonibai predeceased the deceased. One Akhad S. Bhandari was the brother of Sonibai. Akhad had five children one of whom was Smt. Yeshubai Bhandari....
Tag this Judgment!Bhimrao Mahadu Solunke Vs. Dhondiba Sidram Solunke (Died) Through His ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR406
Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. This appeal arises out of judgment rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Nilanga in an Appeal (R.C.A. No. 13/1999), whereby judgment and decree of trial Court in suit for redemption of mortgage has been confirmed.2. For sake of convenience, the parties may be referred by their first names. Appellant Bhimrao is original defendant. Deceased Respondent Dhondiba was original plaintiff. A suit (R.C.S. No. 525/86) was laid by deceased Dhondiba for redemption of mortgage by reconveyance of suit land. Agricultural land bearing Section No. 91/C, admeasuring 5 acres 9 gunthas (suit land) was owned and possessed by deceased Dhondiba. His case before the trial Court was that due to indebtedness, he needed money and hence, requested Bhimrao to lend an amount of Rs. 4,000/-. Thereupon, Bhimrao agreed to give advance of Rs. 4,000/- on condition that the suit land shall be mortgaged by way of security for redemption of the loan. They agreed that if the loan amount would ...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind S/O Ramlu Pattiwar Vs. Sambashiv Ramlu Pattiwar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj568
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. He has filed a suit for declaration, partition and separate possession. The suit is of the year 2000. He wanted to amend the plaint which prayer has been allowed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur. While doing so, cost of Rs. 1000/- was ordered.3. This stipulation of cost of Rs. 1000/- is challenged in this petition.4. This Court finds that the litigant who is aggrieved by order of payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- has spent Rs. 250/- for Court fees and certainly some expenses for filing the petition and might have incurred the expenses towards Lawyers fees too. He is least worried about the cost which State suffers due to such avoidable and vexatious litigations, apart from loss of invaluable time of this Court, and deprivation of time of Court lost due to such frivolous petition.5. In this situation, the petitioner should be ordered to pay cost of Rs. 5000/- which shall go to the Legal Services Sub Committee ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »