Mumbai Court November 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.
Shaunak H. Choksi Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2007
Reported in: IV(2008)BC397; 2008CriLJ2120
ORDERA.P. Deshpande, J.1. The present writ petitioner is original accused No. 3, one of the Directors of the original accused No. 1 Company. The order of issue of process was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge and the dismissal of the said revision has given rise to the filing of the present writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner solely being a Director of the Company cannot by itself be made liable for the act of the company as the petitioner was neither incharge of the affairs of the company nor was involved in the conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of the offence. The revisional Court has observed in para 12 of the impugned order that in para 1 of the complaint, the complainant has categorically averred that the accused Nos. 2 to 4 are in charge and responsible to the accused No. 1 (company) for the conduct of its business. Reliance is also placed on the...
Makers Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Ccex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2007
Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC42
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. br/102 & 103/Th-II/06 dated 20.4.2006. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants herein are manufacturer of pharmaceutical goods on their own and are also manufacturing the said pharmaceutical goods on loan licence basis. The appellants cleared physician samples manufactured on their own as well as manufactured on loan licence basis on payment of duty. The valuation of the physician sample was in dispute with the authorities. The said dispute was resolved in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 5,29,687/- in respect of duty paid on such physician sample. The said refund claim was sought to be rejected on the ground that the question of unjust enrichment arises in such cases.The adjudicating authority has held that the appellant has raised the credit note of the amount of the duty paid on the physicians sample and recovered the same from their principal. As...
Vasantrao S/O Vishwanathrao Mane and ors. Vs. Apparao S/O Baibanna Sid ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR95; 2008(2)BomCR662; (2007)109BOMLR2787; 2008(3)MhLj242
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this common Judgment both the abovementioned appeals are being disposed of together inasmuch as they arise out of same Judgment rendered by learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Osmanabad in proceedings under Section 72(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (For short, the B.P.T.Act), bearing Misc.C.A. No. 102 of 2005. Though the appeals were registered as First Appeals, yet they are treated as Second Appeals in view of Shivprasad Shankarlal Pardeshi since deceased by heirs Shrikant Shivprasad and Ors. v. Leelabai Badrinarayan Kalwar since deceased by her heirs and Ors. 1998 (1) M.L.J.444.2. Ashta Shikshan Sanstha, Ashta (Kasar), is a registered society and Trust. Somewhere in 1965, few founder members formed the educational trust. A scheme was settled for administration of the trust at the time of registration of the trust. The said scheme settled on 29.8.1965 was operative until framing of impugned scheme by the Assistant Charity Commissioner as pe...
Gulab Krishnarao Gunjal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR204; 2008(1)MhLj323
1. Heard. None for the petitioner.2. Mr. Gokhale, Assistant Government Pleader, appears for the respondents. The petition came to be filed by the petitioner land owner challenging the order dated 11-7-1996 passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act declaring an area of 2267 sq.mtrs. as surplus and further declaring Plot No. 40 as surplus land. The petitioner also challenged the consequential order which came to be passed on 7-8-1996 by the competent authority. It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed a declaration in respect of Plot Nos. 36 to 40 and 48 and 49. Therefore he pointed out that Plot Nos. 48 and 49 were leased out by registered lease deed for which he had obtained permission under Section 4(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and constructed a building forming a cooperative housing society. Plot Nos. 36 and 38 were leased out to one A.V. Apate whereas Plot No. 40 was gifted...
Rasta Peth Education Society and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR173; 2008(2)BomCR198; [2008(116)FLR608]; 2008(1)MhLj146
1. Heard learned Counsel. The petitioner management was required to approach this Court impugning the decision of the respondent education officer communicated to the petitioner management vide his letter dated 20-8-1996 wherein it was mentioned that as the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune has directed that one Mr. Ballal, CA, is entitled to receive salary from January, 1995 to July, 1996 which amounts to Rs. 37182/- and as the same is being paid by the Education Officer, the said amount would be deducted from the non-salary grant. According to the petitioner society, they are running certain educational institutions in Pune and one such institution is Abasaheb Atre Night School at Pune of which petitioner No. 2 is the headmaster. The dispute relates to the appointment of respondent No. 5 Shri Sitaram Eknath Ballal who came to be appointed by the petitioner as he was having the required qualification i.e. B.A., B.Ed, and belonged to Scheduled Tribe category and was in ...
Lloyds Metals and Engg. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ifci Limited and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR71; III(2008)BC581; 2008(1)BomCR380
Deshpande A.P., J.1. The petitioners take exception to an order passed by the Sessions Judge dated 4.7.07 dismissing criminal revision application objecting to issuance of process in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner No. 1 is a company and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are its directors. It is a matter of record that the petitioners are indebted to respondent No. 1 IFCI Limited which had advanced money to the petitioners for the purpose of their business. On 27.6.06 the petitioners issued six cheques in favour of the respondent financial institution drawn on Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Limited. Three of the said cheques when presented for encashment were dishonoured as the petitioners had instructed the bank not to encash the said cheques. On account of the dishonour of the cheques the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners and as the Magistrate was prima facie satisfied that the complaint deserved consideration passed an order of i...
Vivekanand Raghunath Naik Gaonkar Vs. Vinayak Nilba Naik Gaonkar and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj774
F.I. Rebello, J.1. This appeal was admitted on the following question of law:Whether the lower Appellate Court could have decided an issue which was not disputed by the respondent viz. the identification of the property in view of Order 8, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code?Order 8, Rule 5, Sub-rule (1) read as under:Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability;Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.2. A few facts may now be set out. The appellant before this Court was the original plaintiff and the respondent original defendant. In the plaint, the plaintiff had averred as under:The plaintiff is the co-owner of the property known as KERI, situated at Agonda, Village Panchayat Agonda, Taluka Canacona, enrolled for matriz unde...
M.R. Bhagat and Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)10STR130
1. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Revision No. 19/NSK/06, dt. 2-3-2006.None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice nor there is any request for adjournment. Since the issue involved in this case is in a narrow compass and appeal is taken up for disposal in the absence of any representation from the appellant.2. Considered the submissions made by Id. Jt. CDR and perused the records. It is seen from the records that the issue involved in this case is regarding the enhancement of the penalty imposed on the appellant under the provisions of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.The appellant failed to pay Service Tax for the period April, 2002 to September, 2003 before the stipulated time subsequently on being pointed out the appellants paid the duty of service tax along with interest. Considering this fact, the adjudicating authority invoking the provisions of Section 80 imposed a penalty of Rs. 2500/- under Section 76 and Rs. 500/- under Section 77. On examination o...
Jubilant Organosys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC163
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No.215(GR.IIC)/2006(JNCH) dt. 17.11.2006.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry dt. 13.6.06 for import of 14.4MT of Tetrahydrofuran under DEPB Scheme. While calculating the amount of duty payable on such imports, the appellant's paid the duty on 23.8 MT instead of 14.4 MT and discharged the said amount of duty through DEPB pass book. The appellant filed an appeal against the assessment on Bill of Entry to Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that they have cleared only 14.40 MT and not 28.8 MT. The Commissioner (Appeals) came to the following conclusion. I have gone through the records of the case. Delay in filing the Appeal is allowed. The appellants have relied on High Seas Sale Contract, Ref No. C/06-07/40 dt. 23.05.06 for import of 14.4 MT of Tetrahydrofuran for a consideration of Rs. 20,16,000/-. They have also relied on B/L No. KMTCUSN112261 dt. 16.05.2006 of M/s. KM...
Voltas Ltd. Vs. Asst. Cwt
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)301ITR217(Mum.)
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 255 of the IT Act, the Hon'ble President has constituted this Special Bench to decide upon the following issues.: 1. Whether the value of the immovable asset owned by an assessee is includible in the net wealth of the owner/assessee or the lessee in terms of Section 4(8)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act read with Section 269UA(f) of the IT Act where the term of the lease is (i) exceeding 12 months but less than 12 years; and/ or (ii) exceeding 12 years. 2. Whether the words in parenthesis in Section 4(8)(b) of the W.T. Act "(excluding any rights by way of lease from month to month or for a period not exceeding one year)" in fact relate to the nature of the lease agreement, which will not qualify for applying the provisions of Section 4(8)(b) of the W.T. Act. 3. Whether lease agreement for a period for less than one year with an extension clause which is normally an agreement of Leave and Licence, Will not be covered by Section 4(8)(b) of the W...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »