Mumbai Court October 2007 Judgments

Jaimala Jageshwar Barapatre Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR357; 2008(1)MhLj428

A.H. Joshi, J.1. As the pleadings are complete, by consent of parties, petition is taken up for final disposal. Hence, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, and heard finally.2. Petitioner herein claimed to be belonging to Halba - Scheduled Tribe. She had applied for, and was issued the Certificate dated 31st March, 1993, certifying her to be belonging to Halba - Scheduled Tribe. Based on this Certificate, petitioner contested the election as a Corporator in the general elections to Nagpur Municipal Corporation, and has been elected. The petitioner's tribe claim was subjected to scrutiny. Petitioner's tribe claim has been scrutinized, and is invalidated by order dated 13th June, 2007. Petitioner has challenged said order of invalidation by this petition.3. Petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of ...

Manoramabai Keshav Joshi Vs. Arun Keshav Joshi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR667; 2008(1)MhLj905

J.H. Bhatia, J. 1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner, who is an old lady aged about 85 years, is admittedly widow of one Keshav Joshi. Respondent No. 1 is her son. She has one more son. She filed Special Civil Suit No. 12 of 2005 seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/respondent No. 1 from interfering in her possession over the disputed property. The property consist of a house bearing City Survey No. 666/KA situated within the limits of Panvel Municipal Council. Admittedly, this property originally belonged to her husband Keshav Joshi, who died on 9th July, 1987. Keshav Joshi has left behind the petitioner as a widow, two sons, namely, Arun and Vilas and three married daughters. Arun is the defendant. According to the petitioner/plaintiff on 26th October, 1987 the defendant and her other children executed the document whereby they surr...

Pradeep Sadashiv Pavgi and ors. Vs. R.S. Luth Education Trust and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR677; 2008(1)MhLj919

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Rule.2. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.3. To state in brief, the petitioner filed Summary Suit No. 33 of 2006 against the respondents for recovery of certain amount. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 is a education trust of which the respondent No. 3 is a chairman and the respondent No. 2 is a partnership firm of which the respondent No. 3 is a partner. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are under the control and management of the respondent No. 3. All activities including financial activities of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are exclusively run and conducted by the respondent No. 3. For raising constructions of a huge project at village: Dugaon, Taluka and District: Nashik for the purpose of school and educational academy, respondent No. 3 for the respondent No. 1 approached the petitioner for purchase of steel. Petitioner accordingly supplied the steel at the site of th...

Vasantrao Gudacharva Jahagirdar Vs. Sharanbasappa Vishwanath Halli

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR676; 2008(1)MhLj955

S.A. Bobde, J. 1. The applicant-tenant has challenged concurrent findings of both the Courts below that he is liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground that the applicant-tenant has obtained alternate accommodation and that the tenant has not used the suit premises for a period of six months prior to the filing of the suit.2. Mr. Kumbhakoni, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not properly pleaded the ground of non-user of the premises for a period of six months prior to the suit as is required to be pleaded by the Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act, which reads as follows:13(1)(k) that the premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit.3. I am not inclined to allow this ground to be urged since it is being urged for the first time in this revision, without being raised in any of the Courts below. It i...

Ashok Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Jai Vidarbha Education Society and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj491

A.H. Joshi, J.1. The case proceeds on admitted facts namely:(a) The petitioner herein initially joined the employment of respondent No. 1 from the academic year 1987-1988 as teacher in Junior College on clock hour basis, and continued with the same status on year to year basis till, a vacancy of full time post of a teacher in Hindi and English occurred in the academic session 1991-92. The petitioner was appointed as a full time teacher for one academic session.(b) The petitioner was given similar appointment in each year preceding till the management declined to continue his appointment on year to year basis in the academic year commencing from June, 1998.(c) The reason leading to petitioner's appointment on year to year basis was that the Education Department treated the post held by the petitioner to be filled in by reserved category of Scheduled Tribe.(d) That there are only three posts of teachers in Junior College.(e) One post is held by Shri R.Y. Dupte who is a member of Schedule...

Chate Coaching Classes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR207

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre deposit of Service tax of Rs. 2,82,46,874/- and penalty of equal amount. Service Tax has been demanded on the ground that the applicants are not eligible to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 12/2003-ST dated 26.06.2006 as amended by Notification 12/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 to study material sold/supplied by the applicant to their students for the reason that study material is not standard text book for which alone benefit is available as per CPEC Circular No. 59/8/2003 dated 20.06.2003.2. Prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit has been made out by the applicant as we are satisfied that prima facie when the language of the notification does not restrict exemption only to standard text book sold, the notification cannot be whittled down by the circular.We, therefore, grant the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit and stay recovery of the amounts in question, pending the appeal....

The Cotton Textiles Export Vs. the Ito (Exemptions), Range 1(1)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2001-02. Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by the common order for the sake of convenience.2. The first and main issue arising from the appeal of the assessee is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in denying the claim of the assessee for accumulation of its income Under Section 11(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a body established as a non-profit making organisation for the promotion and regulation of export of cotton textiles and incorporated as a company Under Section 25 of the Companies Act. The activities of the assessee, admittedly, are entitled to the benefit of Section 11 of the Act. It filed its income-tax return for the year under consideration on 24^th October, 2001, declaring nil income after claiming exemption Under Section 11 of the Act. The return was accompanied b...

Harsha Achyut Bhogle Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Mum.)266

1. The present bunch of appeals has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) for asst. yrs. 1996-97, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2001-02. Major issues involved in all the appeals are common. We therefore find it convenient to dispose of the present bunch of appeals by a consolidated order.Ground Nos. 1 to 3 taken in the appeals for asst. yrs. 1996-97 and 1998-99 are identical except for the difference in figures. In other two appeals, namely appeals for asst. yrs. 1999-2000 and 2001-02, identical issue has been raised in first two grounds of appeal. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 taken by the assessee in his appeal for asst. yrs. 1996-97 read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITO erred in concluding that the appellant is not an actor within the meaning of Section 80RR of the IT Act and hence not entitled to deduction claimed under Section 80RR of Rs. 6,87,198 by the appellant and learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 2. The lear...

Adinath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana a Coroporate Society Duly Registered ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR115; 2008(2)MhLj443

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The simple question that arises for consideration of the court in the present case is whether the petitioner can claim relief in terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to the Act), even after years of cause of action having arisen in favour of the petitioner. The relief claimed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act is opposed by the respondents primarily on the ground that the petition as well as the claim raised for arbitration are barred by time and as such petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The necessary facts are that the parties entered into an agreement dated 18th March 1990 for design, manufacture, procurement and supply of machinery and equipment of the sugar plant of the petitioner. The agreement was executed at Pune. Clause 19 of the said agreement contains an arbitration clause, which reads as under:If at any time there should be any question, dispute or difference between the parties in ...

Shri Dattatraya G. Wankar, Sub-divisional Engineer, Road Project Sub D ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR4; 2007(6)BomCR813

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Sixty-two, Civil Engineer graduates, working as Sub Divisional Engineers, in the Public Works Department of the State of Maharashtra, filed an Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, being O.A. No. 473 of 1998. By the said O.A. they originally sought a declaration that Rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class I and the Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class II (Regulation of Seniority and preparation and revision of seniority lists) Rules, 1983 is unconstitutional. The reliefs sought were:(a) That this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to declare Rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class I and the Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class II (Regulation of Seniority and preparation and revision of seniority lists) Rules, 1983 as unconstitutional and allow this petition with all consequential benefits.The Consequential Prayer Clause reads as under:(b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to give necessary directions...