Mumbai Court November 2007 Judgments

Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh, Shahadal Hamidso Shaikh and Najamum Shadal Sh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR48; I(2008)DMC194

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal arises from the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1990 by the learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge at Kolhapur. The accused -appellants came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and have been sentenced to suffer RI for seven years under Section 304B and for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-in default to suffer RI for six months under Section 498A of IPC. On admission of appeal they were released on bail as per the order dated 19/12/1990. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are no more and death certificates issued by Kagal Municipal Council in respect of appellant No. 3 and by the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation in respect of appellant No. 2 are placed on record. Hence this appeal survives only against the appellant No. 1 original accused No. 1.2. Marriage of the appellant No. 1 with deceased Hasina -daughter of...

China Gate Restaurant Private Limited Vs. Kisan D. Badei

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR80; 2008(2)BomCR273

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties on the question of granting interim relief during the pendency of the writ petition as prayed by the petitioner as also the reliefs claimed by the respondent workman in the Notice of Motion No. 414 of 2007. As the argument for considering both these reliefs is overlapping, the same is disposed off by the common order. 2. The writ petition arises from an order passed by the Presiding Officer-I, Labour Court, Mumbai dated 28th November 2006. For considering the points in issue, I think it apposite to reproduce the Award as passed by the Presiding Officer-I, Labour Court, Mumbai which is subject matter of the challenge in the writ petition. The same reads thus:AWARD i) The reference is allowed. ii) The 2nd party is entitled to get reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service w.e.f. 20.6.2002 with consequential benefits. The amount deposited by the 1st party Rs. 3000/- per month as per the order of the court shall be adjus...

Ramlal Maniram Navdhinge Vs. Maniram Patiram Navdhinge and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR699; 2008(1)MhLj860

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an appeal by plaintiff whose plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.2. Facts shorn of details are as under:The parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is also the son of defendant No. 1 while defendants 3 and 4 are sons of defendant No. 2 and defendants 5 to 7 are the daughters of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff submits that the suit property originally belonged to his grand father Patiram. After his death the property came in the hands of his father defendant No. 1. He submits that it is, therefore, an ancestral joint family property. The plaintiff has therefore acquired interest in the property along with defendants 1 to 7. Plaintiff requested the defendants to effect a partition but they avoided. On the other hand defendant No. 1 executed gift deed in favour of son of defendant No. 2 and also in favour of defendants 5 to 7. He executed those gift deeds o...

Nathmal Jodharaj Since Deceased Through Lrs. Ramesh Nathmal Agrawal an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR84; 2008(2)MhLj691

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal by original defendant No. 29 under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure challenges the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1962 delivered by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Achalpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 7A of 1954 filed by present respondent No 2 and her son i.e. present respondent No. 1 for redemption of mortgage and specific performance of agreement to reconvey the property. Division Bench of this Court on 23-6-1971 disposed of this appeal along with First Appeal No. 93 of 1962 filed by Narayanrao i.e. original defendant No. 3 and First Appeal No. 20 of 1963 filed by Taradevi, original defendant No. 1 who happens to be mother-in-law of present respondent No. 2. Division Bench found that the matter was compromised and hence in view of said agreement of compromise between original plaintiffs on one hand and original defendant No. 3 on the other hand, it modified the decree of trial Court accordingly. Defendant No. 29 in said suit and appella...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. N.R.B. Bearings Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC150

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. AKD(17)218 & 219/2007 dt. 24.01.2007.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It is the contention of the Revenue that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) should not be set aside the penalty imposed and the interest sought to be charged from the respondent. It is the submission that the respondent having discharged the duty liability towards the ineligible availment of cenvat credit and no being contested by them, the interest and penalty is liable to be imposed. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that they are not challenging the amount of the duty reversed by them, it is submitted that amount has been paid before the issuance of the show cause notice and the show cause notice does not allege suppression of facts or fraud on the part of the respondent. Hence it is the submission that the order of Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty is correct.3. On pe...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Prerana Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No.GOA/CEX/BBP/103/2006 dt. 24.10.2006.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The revenue is in appeal on the ground that the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty imposed on the respondent. It is the contention of the Ld. SDR that the imposition of penalty on the respondent, as has been imposed by the adjudicating authority is correct and no reason for reductions. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly upheld the law as is applicable in this case.3. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the issue is whether the appellant is liable for enhanced penalty. The Revenue has sought so. It is seen from the facts of the case, that the appellant has erred in not accounting for the finished goods in the statutory records. Having held so, the unaccounted goods were liable for confiscation but released on payment of redemption f...

Mukand Global Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit - Range 3(2)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessor is directed against the order of the; CIT(A) on various grounds, which are as under: 1. Setting off of loss on sale of flat (Deemed Short Term Capital Gain) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Ld Assessing Officer in not setting off loss of Rs. 34,43,668/-, being deemed short term loss, against income under the head "Profits & Gains of Business and Profession. 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 1,01,40,295/in respect of provisions for non performing assets. 2.2 In doing so, the ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in the following respects: (a) In not appreciating the fact that the provision of non performing assets was made on the basis of prudential norms prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India f...

Surjansingh S/O Mohansingh Vs. Smt. Jasbir Kaur Wd/O Sardar Chanansing ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR454; 2008(2)BomCR207; 2008(2)MhLj763

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This Second Appeal has been admitted by treating questions at Sr. Nos. I, II, VI, IX & X of para 5 of memo of Second Appeal as substantial questions of law on 14.10.2002. 2. I have heard Shri Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the appellant original plaintiff and Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for the respondents original defendants. The questions mentioned above read as under:I. Whether, the finding which is recorded adversely against the respondents, can be challenged by the respondents without filing cross objection under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure after the amendment of Code of Civil Procedure in 1976 II. Whether the question regarding maintainability of the suit under Order 23, Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure could be tried as a preliminary issue; as the same required the examination of facts and the causes of action in the previous suit as well as in subsequent suit and also the subsequent events which led to the filing of the seco...

State of Maharashtra Through the Collector Vs. Ram Iqbal Mishra S/O Sh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR676

R.C. Chavan, J.1. These first appeals by the State are directed against the award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 32/90 and 15/90, whereby the learned Judge enhanced the compensation granted to the respondents herein from Rs. 14,500/-per hectare to Rs. 60,000/-per acre, i.e. about Rs. 1,60,000/-per hectare. 2. The lands of the respondents were sought to be acquired for an open cast mine by notification dated 14-11-1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. This notification was last published on 22-1-1986, which is thus the relevant date for the purpose of determining the value of the lands. After taking further steps under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and considering the claims submitted by the land owners, by an award dated 21-10-1998, the Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 14,500/-per hectare or Rs. 5,800/-per acre to the two claimants. The land involved in Fi...

Vittaldas Jagnnath Khatri and Smt. Kamaladevi Vittaldas Khatri Vs. the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR504; 2008(1)MhLj870

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal raises the following questions:(i) Could a partition between father and daughters effected before 26-9-1970 be questioned in proceedings to determine surplus lands of the father (ii) Could the Appellate Authority entertain a cross-objection without the objector paying requisite court fees (iii) Could the Appellate Authority allow a cross-objection affecting the rights of daughters, who were not parties in the proceedings before the Authority (iv) Could a gift, which had not been actually acted upon, be considered for including the properties gifted to the wife in the holding of the family of her husband 2. These questions arise under the following set of facts:(i) The appellant held the lands substantially in excess of the ceiling on holdings of agricultural lands enforced by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 as amended up to the year 1976 (For short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (ii) In 1955, there was a register...