Mumbai Court November 2007 Judgments

Raju S/O Mohanrao Rathod Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Police S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR2744; 2008CriLJ1131

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This appeal is directed against Judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by learned Special Judge, Latur, in Special Case No. 15 of 2003. By the impugned Judgment, appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under Section 20(i)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short, 'the N.D.P.S. Act' ) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 (One) lac in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that on 23.8.2003, P.S.I. Sharma, who was attached to City Police Station at Udgir, received secret information to the effect that one person was likely to arrive at S.T.stand, Udgir alongwith contraband 'Ganja'. He immediately sent a report to Superintendent of Police, Latur. He called panch witnesses and attempted to secure presence of Tahsildar as Gazetted Officer. Since the Tahsildar was out of town, he requested Medical Offi...

Khurshid Bano Wd/O Mohd. Ayub and ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsar S/O Mohd. Samsh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR703; 2008(2)BomCR196; (2008)110BOMLR39

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This Second appeal is at the instance of the original plaintiffs. 2. A few facts may be narrated thus The plaintiffs are the heirs of one Mohd.Ayub s/o Pyar Mohammad. Mohd.Ayub owned the property described in the plaint namely Plot No. 171/1 on Nazul Sheet No. 21/C at Shegaon. The said plot was purchased by Mohd.Ayub in the year 1951 by registered sale-deed. There was a small structure in a dilapidated condition on the said plot. Mohd.Ayub was for some time running a floor mill in the said house. Later he shifted to Bombay and stopped running the said floor mill. He died in the year 1965. The plaintiffs, who are the heirs of Mohd.Ayub also shifted to Bombay along with him. Defendant No. 7 is also one of the heirs of deceased Mohd.Ayub. Each of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 7 has 1/7th share in the suit property. Deceased Mohd.Ayub had a real brother by name Mohd.Samsher. He was, however, residing at Shegaon only. Mohd.Ayub had allowed said Mohd.Samsher and defen...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shri Ananda Tukaram Akale and Tasgaon Urb ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR181

ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant State, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 accused and learned Counsel for respondent No. 2- bank. Perused record.2. The State of Maharashtra has moved this application for cancellation of anticipatory bail so as to arrest the respondent No. 1- accused Shri Ananda Tukaram Akale ('the accused' for short).Factual Matrix:3. The factual matrix giving to the present application, in short, is as under:4. The accused is a businessman running the business of agency under the name and style 'Shreekripa Agency' at Kavate Mahankal, district Sangli. He is operating as agent for M/s.Ambuja Cement. The nature of business is to buy cement from the manufacture and sell the same in the open market.5. In the year 2002, the accused opened an account bearing Current Account No. 9 with Tasgaon Co operative Bank, Kavate-Mahankal Branch ('said bank' for short). In the year 2003, accused opened another account bearing Current Account No. 375 wit...

Delta Distilleries Limited, a company registered under the provisions ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR589; 2008(3)ARBLR265(Bom); [2009]148CompCas809(Bom); 2008(1)MhLj899

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. A reference to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is pending before the Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sujata Manohar as sole Arbitrator. The arbitral proceedings have commenced and the first witness of the claimants, the Respondents herein, is under cross-examination. On 10th July 2007, an application was filed on behalf of the Respondents seeking to implead the Third Respondent instead and in place of the Second Respondent. The application was allowed by the Learned Arbitrator on 1st July 2007. The decision of the Arbitrator has been questioned in these proceedings. The Act contemplates a challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34, an arbitral award being defined to include an interim award under Section 2(c). The contention of the Petitioner is that the decision of the Arbitrator constitutes an interim award in view of the principle enunciated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co.Ltd. : (...

Gulab Rameshnath Khote Vs. State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR864; 2008(1)BomCR252; 2008(1)MhLj83

S.R. Sathe, J.1. Being aggrieved by the provision made in Section 73(1AB) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) that the member who fails to execute such bond within a specified period shall be deemed to have vacated his office as member of the Committee, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and prayed that the said provision be declared ultra vires.2. Brief facts giving rise to this Writ Petition are as under:There is a Co-operative Housing Society by name Khatauwadi Tenants Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as KTCH Society) at Grant Road, Mumbai. Election for the Managing Committee of the said KTCH Society took place on 16.2.2005 and 8 members were declared as elected. The Petitioner is one of the elected members. One Mrs. N.M.Kumta was removed from the post of Chairman of KTCH Society. Some litigation was going on between the said Kumta and ...

Sub-divisional Officer/Deputy Engineer, Amalnala Dam Sub Division and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR166; 2008(1)MhLj249

1. Office has raised an objection in this set of appeals that the appellants should make good deficit of Rs. 225/- in the Court fees paid on each of these appeals. These appeals take exception to an order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting four applications for review which arose out of orders in writ petitions passed by the learned Single Judge. These writ petitions took exception to orders passed by the Industrial Court.2. According to the registry the appeals are taxable in terms of Article 4 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, which reads as under:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4. Plaint, application or petition |...| The same fee as is leviable on a(including memorandum of appeal) | | plaint in a suit to obtain the reliefwhich is capable of being treated as | | granted in the decree or order, asa suit, to set aside a decree or order | | the case may be.having the force of a decree.' | |----------------...

Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Aevees Pharmaceuticals and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR788; 2008(3)MhLj379

V.C. Daga, J.1. The plaintiff- Bank ('the Bank' for short) has filed this suit for the recovery of their outstanding dues; due and recoverable from the defendants in the sum of under the Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Account and Cash Credit (Bills) Account together with interest, on the sum of Rs. 99,138.16 at the rate of 16% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of the suit till payment in full and final. The Facts:2. The factual matrix brought on record is that the defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing of pharmaceutical products having its factory at 345/A, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-400 604 of which defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were the partners, who had approached the plaintiff- Bank in the month of October, 1999 to seek two cash credit facilities viz. (i) Cash Credit Facility against the (Hypothecation of Goods and Raw Materials) to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- and (ii) Cash Credit Facility (against the Bills of Defendant No. 1) to the extent of Rs. 25,00...

Radhakrishna Foodland Carriers Vs. Commr. of S.T.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR459

1. The claim of the appellants herein for refund of Service Tax of Rs. 1,19,424/- covering the period from February 2005 to July 2005 has been rejected by the authorities below on the ground that they did not file any documents to support their contention that there was double payment of Service Tax.2. I have heard both sides. I find, neither before the Asstt.Commissioner nor the lower Appellate Authority that the appellants produced any documents to support their stand that they had paid service tax twice and also find that none appeared for the personal hearing even though the Commissioner (Appeals) has extended several opportunities to them. Even before the Tribunal, no documents have been produced to substantiate their case of double payment.3. Therefore, I see no ground to interfere with the order of the authorities below rejecting the claim as unsubstantiated and accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....

The Acit Vs. Triace

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is in appeal before us against the order of id. CIT(A) dated 6/2/04 passed for assessment year 1995-96. The solitary grievance of the Revenue is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,50,000/- made by the A.O on the ground that assessee has generated good will which was transferred by it to one of the partners, though not on dissolution but on retirement and such transfer does come within the ambit of expression "otherwise" employed in Section 45 (4) of the Act.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset pointed out that in this case return of income was filed n 27/10/95. The assessee has disclosed all the material facts fully and duly, i.e. copy of the partnership deed, copy of the retirement cum partnership deed dated 1/4/1994, detailed explanation in respect of payment made to the retired partner was made to the A.O. He further pointed out that after going through all these documents the assessment under Section 143(3) was made on 31/...

R.K. Shinde and ors. Vs. Shekoba Auto Pvt. Ltd., a Company Incorporate ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR277; 2008(1)BomCR602; (2007)109BOMLR2701; (2008)IILLJ1037Bom

J.N. Patel, J.1. By this Letters Patent Appeal the Petitioners, employees of the respondent, have impugned the judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5845 of 1999 which came to be filed by the respondent employer challenging the decision of the Industrial Court, Pune in Complaint (ULP) No. 70 of 1999 holding that the employer had committed unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971) thereby directing the employer to continue the respondents employees 1 to 40 in their services and to pay each of the respondents Rs. 1000/-towards compensation and a further sum of Rs. 1000/-each towards cost. The Industrial Court, inter alia, held that Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 were functionally integrated and together employed more than 100 employees and, therefore...