Mumbai Court October 2007 Judgments

Sunil Mehra Vs. Rajinder Singh Gulati

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR812; 2008(1)BomCR359

Kumar Swatanter, C.J.1. The plaintiff respondent in the present appeal filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 12 lacs from the defendant-appellant. The suit for recovery was based on the averment that the defendant 2 appellant herein had expressed his desire to induct the respondent as a partner in his firm upon his contributing Rs. 13.50 lacs as capital and equal amount was to be contributed by the defendant. The plaintiff contributed the said amount on 6th January, 1997. However, the defendant did not contribute his capital investment on the ground that money was not readily available with him. In May, 1997 the appellant stated that he had no funds. The respondent expressed his desire not to be inducted as partner in the sole proprietorship business under the name and style of X.L. Marketing and requested for refund of the amount of Rs. 13.50 lacs. The appellant did not refund the money but by a letter of confirmation dated 15th May, 1997 confirmed the debt and agreed to pay the said amoun...

Nandlal S/O Pundlikrao Sabe Vs. Maharashtra State Examination Council ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj563

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. We have heard Advocate Shri B.G. Kulkarni for the petitioner, and Advocate Shri P.B. Patil for respondent and Smt. S.W. Deshpande Advocate for the respondent No. 2.3. The petitioner had enrolled for D.Ed., '1993 Course' in respondent No. 2's College in March, 2001, as a regular student, and cleared the first year D.Ed. examination held in April-May, 2002 with 64.16% marks. He was eligible for appearing in the second year D.Ed., examination in May, 2003, but could not appear at the said examination, due to his financial difficulties. He could not appear for subsequent examination in October, 2003 and April, 2004 as well, for a variety of reasons.4. The D.Ed., syllabus was changed in the year 2004. In the new syllabus, there is a condition that the candidate would be allowed to appear for the final D.Ed., examination at maximum three consecutive examinations. According to the petitioner, this condition...

Singapore Airlines Ltd. and anr. Vs. QuentIn Rodrigues

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR760]

S.R. Sathe, J.1. By consent appeal is heard finally at admission stage.This is a case of Singapore Airline's employee who is at Mumbai for last 20 years but opposing his transfer to Jalandhar, on several grounds.2. The appellants original defendants in Suit Stamp No. 2811 of 2007 have preferred this appeal against the order passed in Notice of Motion No. 2756 of 2007 by Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay whereby the plaintiffs application for temporary injunction restraining defendants from implementing the transfer order of plaintiff dated 9.7.2007 transferring him to Jalandhar till the disposal of suit was allowed. For the sake of convenience hereafter the parties shall be referred to as 'plaintiff and 'defendants'.3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:The plaintiff joined services of defendant No. 1 Singapore Airlines Ltd. as clerk at Mumbai with effect from 5.1.1987 vide his appointment letter dated 22.12.1986. As per the term No. 6 of the said appointment letter,...

Subhash S/O Shivanna Margamwar and ors. Vs. Shri Jagdamba Shikshan Pra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj99

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties.2. Heard Counsel for the parties.3. The grievance of the petitioners in both these petitions is that they are the life members/patron members of the educational Trust called 'Shri Jagdamba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mahur'. They contended that they were kept away from the election process though they are the members and eligible to participate in the election of the members of the Managing body. It appears that in earlier Writ Petition (W.P. No. 4994 of 2006), by order dated 17-10-2006, the Assistant Charity Commissioner was directed to decide as to who are the members/Trustees of the said educational Trust. Thereafter, the election programme was to be set out by appointing an Election Officer. The Assistant Charity Commissioner heard concerned parties and decided the issue regarding membership. He came to the conclusion that there are 26 members of the Trust and would be eligible to participa...

Acit Vs. Malhar Information Services

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the respective orders of the CIT(A).2. The only ground of objection by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the mandatory requirements of Section 80HHE and therefore directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim under Section 80HHE.3. Assessee is engaged in the business of information vending. During the year under consideration assessee declared sale turnover of Rs. 76,49,949/- and gross profit of Rs. 43,54,225/- @ 60.84%. The net profit shown was Rs. 43,23,039/- @ 56.51%. Assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHE of Rs. 44,16,671/-. Assessing Officer held that to claim deduction under Section 80HHC the assessee has to comply with the following conditions: (i) Exports out of India, i.e. the assessee is actually exporting computer software (actual exporter). There must be an export; (ii) Consideration in respect of such software received in or brought into ...

Noshir D. Talati Vs. Dy. Commissioner

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These appeals by the assessees, pertaining to assessment year 2001 -02, involving identical issues, are disposed off by this common order, for the sake of convenience.The order under Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28-3-2006 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order') passed by the learned Commissioner (Commissioner) is bad in law, void ab initio and deserves to be annulled as the impugned order is time barred due to the fact that the impugned order has been received by the appellant after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised has been passed.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding the order of Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.It is submitted that the assessing officer has correctly set off short term capital loss of Rs. 2,70,00,000 (Rs. 2...

Marwah Steels Pvt. Ltd., a Company Registered Under the Companies Act, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR16; 2007(6)MhLj603

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. The learned Advocates appearing for the respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By the present petition, the petitioners while challenging the decision of the respondent No. 2 to treat the Policy Nos.111100/11/04/00831 and 111100/11/05/00800 as policies based on market value basis, seek direction to the respondent No. 2 to sanction the petitioners claim on reinstatement value basis and to continue to treat the said policies to be issued on reinstatement value basis. 3. The petitioners submitted the proposal for Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy to the respondent No. 1 on 15-9-2003 pursuant to which the respondent No. 2 issued Policy bearing No. 1111/11/03/00852 for a period commencing from 15-9-2003 till 14-9-2004 insuring the petitioners building known as 'Marwah Centre', Marwah Estate, K.M. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai together with the plant and machineries, equipments, electrical installations, etc., for...

Pune Panjarpole Trust Vs. Baban Gabaji Saste and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR505; 2007(6)MhLj755

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 21st July, 1985 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sub-Division Pune in TNC/Appeal 51 of 1984 whereby the appeal filed by respondents was allowed and it was declared that the petitioner is not the tenant of the suit lands. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (For short 'MRT'). MRT dismissed the revision application by judgment and order dated 31-8-1988. This order is also challenged in this writ petition.2. Petitioner is the Pune Panjarpole Trust and it was established in the year 1855 A.D. It was duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as also a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Petitioner filed application before the learned Additional Tahsildar and ALT, Haveli under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (For short 'BT and AL Act), seeking declaration that they are tenants ...

Sameersingh Sureshsingh Suryawanshi Vs. Savita Sameersingh Suryawanshi

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR130; 2008(3)BomCR241; 2008(1)MhLj13

Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.Since the second appeal arises out of a matrimonial matter, the parties were put to notice that the matter would be heard finally at the stage of admission.2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant husband against the respondent wife challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Achalpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 6672001 granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent wife.3. Few facts giving rise to the second appeal and to the controversy involved therein are stated thus-The appellant was married to the respondent on 1-5-1997 according to Hindu rites and customs. The respondent joined the company of the appellant husband and went to the matrimonial house to reside with the appellant. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant treated her well for a few days during the lifetime of her father-in-law. After the death of her father-in-...

Baburao S/O Kalu Koli Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Rural Devel ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR372; 2007(6)BomCR6; (2007)109BOMLR2181; 2008(2)MhLj203

Naresh H. Patil, J. 1. Notice for final disposal at the stage of admission was issued by this Court on 20th July 2007.2. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner, a defeated candidate at the election of the Village Gram Panchayat, Jalod, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon, held in the year 2005, seeks issuance of a writ or direction for setting aside the said election of the Village Panchayat on the ground of illegality and nullity.4. The brief factual matrix is as follows:The petitioner is resident of village Jalod, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon. The Collector Jalgaon as per the direction of the State Election Commission, had issued a draft Notification under Rule 5(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Number of Members, Divisions into Wards and Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the Rules, 1966') on 30-6-2005 and invited objections to the said Notification by 6th July 2005. Thereafter the Collector issued a final...