Mumbai Court October 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shankar Ramlu Banpalliwar and Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR125; 2008(1)BomCR135; (2007)109BOMLR2388; 2008(1)MhLj630
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged orders dated 20.9.2007 (Annexure F, F-1 and F-2) filed with the writ petition, so also order dated 25.9.2007 (Annexure-J) made by the Collector, Yavatmal.FACTS:3. In the elections to the Board of Directors of the District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Yavatmal, the petitioner No. 1 applied to the Collector for inclusion of his name as delegate of Res. No. 7-Wagholi Adivasi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha, Wagholi under Rule 5(2) of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971 on 1.9.2007. The Collector called the report under Rule 6(6) from the District Deputy Registrar (D.D.R.) who submitted his report to the Collector along with his recommendations on 11.9.2007. On1 7.9.2007 respondent No. 6 Ramesh Narayan Gangshettiwar also made an application to the Collector that his name should be includ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Heritage Estate Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Bom)275; [2008]303ITR469(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Tribunal at the instance of the assessee has been pleased to refer the following question in respect of Assessment Year 1979-80:Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, assessment for assessment year 1979-80 was time barred?.Similarly, at the instance of Revenue the question as referred is as under:Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, Rs. 82,91,400/- were assessable as income from business or as capital gains?We shall first answer the question as referred on behalf of the assessee. If we answer the question as referred on behalf of the assessee in the affirmative then the question as referred to on behalf of the Revenue is not required to be answered.2. The submission as canvased on behalf of the assessee is that under Section 153(1)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act no order of assessment shall be made under Section 143 or Section 144 at any time after two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, when such...
The Chairman, Halkarni Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and the Principal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR476
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition challenges the order of the School Tribunal dated 13.11.1997 by which the School Tribunal has passed the following order in the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1:1. The appeal is hereby allowed.2. The termination notice dated 1.9.1993 is hereby declared illegal, ineffective and ab initio void, therefore, it is quashed and set aside.3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby ordered to maintain continue services of the appellant as being permanent employee as the interim stay order is confirmed and to pay him back emoluments including pay and allowances if any are not paid to him from the date of termination till decision.4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby ordered to maintain the services of the respondent No. 4 as being permanent employee either in the present institute or if no vacancy is available then by treating him as surplus candidate in any other institute as per the directions of respondent No. 1.5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are further...
Farhana Banu Mohamed Ayub Vs. Jadeed Anjuman-e-taleem,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR69; 2008(1)BomCR124; [2008(116)FLR864]; 2008(3)MhLj517
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioners in both these petitions have challenged the common order dated 17.7.1997 passed by the School Tribunal in Nasik Appeal Nos. 13 of 1997 and 14 of 1997. Both the petitioners were appointed as primary teachers in clear permanent vacancies. They were appointed on 1.8.1995. They were informed that their appointment was on probation for two years. The appointment order issued to each of the petitioners indicates that the appointment was not on a temporary basis but on a probation for a period of two years from 1.8.1995. An order terminating the services of both the petitioners was issued on 30.3.1997 which was to take effect on 30.4.1997.2. Appeals were preferred by each of the petitioners before the School Tribunal. The Tribunal stayed the orders of termination pending the appeals. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 pleaded in their written statement that the approval was granted by the Education Department to the appointments of the petitioners only upto 30.4.1997 ...
Damodar Gulabrai Belani and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Bom)363; [2008]303ITR35(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners in Writ Petn. No. 2507 of 1993 were the' owners of property bearing plot No. 60, survey No. 85, CS Nos. 1362, 1362/1 to 1362/8 admeasuring 1819.41 sq. mtrs. together with bungalow and outhouse situated at Versova, Andheri (West), Bombay--400 058 (hereinafter will be referred to 'as the property'). These petitioners will hereinafter be referred to as 'the owners'.2. The owners entered into an agreement dt. 13th June, 1983 with one Sardar Bhupender Singh Sethi and Sardar Harbans Singh Kohli (hereinafter be referred to as the first purchasers'). By the agreement, the petitioners agreed to sell to the first purchasers the property with the structures existing thereon. By a supplementary agreement entered into on 24th Sept., 1986, it was agreed that the owners would be liable get vacant possession of the premises in occupation of G.K. Makhijani. The owners and the first purchasers applied to the Appropriate Authority for no-objection certificate in respect...
Hdfc Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Nagpur District Security Guard Board and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ995
ORDERC.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of parties.2. By this application, the applicants challenge the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) whereby he allowed the application of the non-applicant No. 2 to assist the prosecution.3. A few facts may be narrated as follows:The applicants are accused in Criminal Complaint No. 3516 of 2006. The non-applicant No. 1 instituted this criminal complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Rule 13 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act 1981. It is alleged that the applicants/accused did not register itself as principal employer and has thus committed offence punishable under Rule 42 of the Rules. Non-applicant No. 2 moved an application in this private complaint case to assist the complainant. It appears that the non-applicant No. 2 was in the employment of the applicants/accused and his service have been terminated by the applicants. The main ground upon whic...
Prajakta Vijay Varsolkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj431
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard.2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18th September, 2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioner's caste claim of belonging to 'Malhar Koli' tribe.3. By a Presidential Order dated 6th September, 1950, Mahadev Koli was declared as a scheduled tribe. Malhar Koli was not a scheduled tribe under the Presidential Order. We are however informed that Malhar Koli has been declared to be a scheduled tribe under the Tribes modification order of 1956 with effect from 1st November, 1956. We proceed on that assumption.4. The petitioner initially obtained a tribe certificate as belonging to Mahadev Koli tribe. That caste certificate was subjected to scrutiny before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. By an order dated 10th June, 1998, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the petitioner's claim of belonging to Mahadev Koli tribe which decision was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 6752 of 1998 in...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Ashish Vasantrao Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2007
Reported in: 2008[10]STR5
ORDER1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of CESTAT dated 15-2-2006 2006 (3) S.T.R. 184 . By that order, for the reasons set out in para 4, the Learned Tribunal considered the power conferred on it under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 exercised its discretion and reduced penalty to the sum of Rs. 4,000/-2. We have taken a view that considering Section 76 and 80, it is open to the Tribunal to exercise such discretion. Once the discretion is exercised and we find that there are germane reasons recorded, the question of law as framed would not arise. Consequently the appeal is dismissed....
Liva Health Care Ltd. Vs. Ccex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)(222)ELT243Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.29/CEX/2006 dated 26.9.2006.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants made a request for remission of duty against a consignment of pharmaceutical product involving duty of Rs. 1,99,347.52 on the ground that the order for the consignment cleared under ARE-1 No.052/2004-05 dated 7.2.2005 from their factory, was cancelled by their customer and returned back on 30.6.2005. The remission application was on the ground that the goods were found not marketable and hence, they have to be destroyed. The adjudicating authority vide the above referred order held that the appellants have not fulfilled the condition of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and hence the remission application was not sustainable and the same was rejected.Having rejected the remission application, the adjudicating authority directed the appellants to deposit the duty amount involved on the goods.3. The ld. Advocate appearing ...
Gkn Sinter Metals Ltd. Vs. Ccex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2007
Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC322
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. PI/313/2006 dated 20.9.2006.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants had purchased plastic crates, which were used in their factory premises for transportation, storing of raw materials and finished goods within the factory premises. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants based upon the audit query that appellants have availed cenvat credit on plastic crates, which is inadmissible since the crates are not used in or in relation to manufacture of their final products.3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the ground that the plastic crates were used by the assessee for storing raw materials, which has no relation to the manufacture of the final products. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the appellants on the ground that the plastic crates were neither integrally connected with the manufacturing process, nor the value appears to have been in...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »