Mumbai Court February 2007 Judgments

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Krishna M. Tare and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR395

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the State. By the impugned judgment Accused Nos. 1 to 11 were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 read with Sections 302 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also Accused No. 12 under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.2. The prosecution case is that on 24.12.1993 at about 7.30 p.m. the deceased Janardan was proceeding towards the house from the S.T. stand of village Anjur along with daughter, aged 4 years. The complainant (Gajanan) alleged to have witnessed that the deceased, Janardan, was running towards his house and Accused Nos. 1 to 11 were chasing him armed with weapons like swords and choppers. When Janardan reached in the courtyard of the complainant, he fell in the courtyard and immediately thereafter Accused Nos. 1 to 11 assaulted with the weapons. The complainant rushed to rescue the deceased. However, in the meanwhile his sister Sunita (PW 2) also rushed to the spot and ab...

Fardeen Feroz Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi), at the Instance of Narcot ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR358; 2007CriLJ1758

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this application, the petitioner challenges an order dated 22.9.2006 passed in Misc. Application No. 237 of 2006 in NDPS Spl. Case No. 97 of 2001. 2. It is not in dispute that by this order the application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.3. A copy of that application is at page 317 of this Revision paper book. 4. The brief facts leading to this application (Misc. Application No. 236 of 2006) being filed by the applicant, are that the applicant is Accused No. 2 in the NDPS Spl.Case No. 97 of 2001. The NDPS case arises out of a complaint dated 2.8.2001 filed by the respondents in the Special Court. The petitioner states that on this complaint, the above NDPS case has been registered. 5. The case of the prosecution according to the present petitioner is as summarised by him in his application before the Court below. It proceeds thus:(i) That on 5.5.2001 the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau/Respondent, based on prior information, arranged s...

Agya Rani Dua Vs. Vidyagauri J. Tripathi and Ms Jyoti Jethalal Tripath ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR855

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. The present appeal arises from an order dated 27th August, 1998 passed in Notice of Motion No. 2436 of 1996 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the notice of motion and rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the plaint filed by the appellant in Suit No. 2480 of 1996 on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation as well as that the plaint does not disclose cause of action.2. Placing reliance in the decisions in the matters of Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah and Ors. v. Anton Elis Farel and Ors. reported in : AIR2006SC1556 , State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar (Dead) By Lrs. reported in : [2000]2SCR134 , Achal Reddi v. Ramakrishna Reddiar and Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 553 and Niranjan Amritlal v. Manharlal Jivanlal Parikh reported in : AIR1984Guj24 , the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground of bar of lim...

Sanatan Sanstha Vs. State of Goa and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ2216

ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. These petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) can be disposed of as revision petitions filed under Section 397 of the Code. All the three petitions arise from C. C. No. 121 /04/A and since facts are common, and so also the law applicable thereto, they can be disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The applicant is the complainant and the private respondents were the accused involved in the said case against whom process was issued by the learned C.J.M. by dated 9-9-2005 under Section 500 r/ w 34 I.P.C. and which process has been quashed and set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in revision, filed by the said accused, by Order dated 12-4-2006.3. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said complaint.4. Heard the learned Counsel on behalf of both the parties.5. The complainant claims to be a Public Charitable Trust having its Office at Sukhsagar, Ponda, Goa, ...

Sukumar M. Khot and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR779

Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioners are owners of lands in respect of which proceedings for acquisition were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The petitioners had earlier moved this Court by a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 6022 of 2005, challenging the declaration made under Section 6, dated 23.6.2005 which was published on 22.8.2005. A learned Bench of this Court by an order dated 21.3.2006 set aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the area of 54 hectares and 16.30 acres and remitted the matter to the land acquisition officer for fresh inquiry in terms of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.3. Pursuant to those directions, a notice was issued to the petitioners for an inquiry to be conducted under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, read with the Rules framed by the State of Maharashtra.Subsequent to the notice and after giving a hearing to the petitioner, the Ap...

Kanhaiyyalal Fattelalji Upadhyaya Deceased Through Lrs. Rukmani Wd/O K ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR338; 2007(2)BomCR808; 2007(4)MhLj360

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Shri Purohit, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Shri Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 5.2. The Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the landlord against the judgment dated 1-2-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (tenants) was allowed and order dated 30-4-2001 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur as well as order dated 30-10-1998 passed by the Rent Controller, Nagpur were quashed and set aside and fhe matter was remitted to the Rent Controller for reconsideration for grant of permission to landlord to issue quit notice except under Clause 13(3)(v) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 with a direction to decide the same within a period of nine months from the date of communication of the order of the learned Single Judge.3. Sh...

Shaila Arun Limye Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR632; 2007(4)BomCR767

Nishita Mhatre, J1. The Petition has been filed challenging the circular issued by Respondent No. 1 on 25.11.2004 which according to the Petitioner is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner has also sought appointment to the post of Librarian in the Respondent No. 4 college run by Respondent No. 5 society. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Petitioner has retired and therefore, has limited the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. She now seeks that the respondents be directed to pay monetary benefits to her on the basis that she would have been entitled to be appointed as a Librarian from 1.8.1995 and would have retired as such.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are not in dispute. The Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk with Respondent No. 4 in 1974. After a period of two years of service, she was confirmed in the post of Junior Clerk with Respondent No. 4. In 1982, the Petitioner graduated in Library Sci...

Prakash Heat Treatment and Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding the disallowance of interest at Rs. 4,89,225 without assigning proper and sufficient reasons. He has failed to appreciate that appellant had borrowed the funds for the purpose of business and hence deduction of interest is allowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 2. He has further erred in arbitrarily upholding disallowance of interest on the ground that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is applicable. He has failed to appreciate that appellant had not made the investment in shares out of borrowed funds for the purpose of earning the dividend.; 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel parts during the previous year relevant to the assessment year un...

Conwood Agencies (P.) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the stand taken by the assessing officer that the funds at interest have not been borrowed by your petitioner for the purpose of business of development and construction of residential project on land (Kandivli Project) and accordingly confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer of interest of Rs. 5,04,56,580 attributable to the value of investment held in shares mainly of group companies and consequential reduction made in the value of project work-in-progress (Kandivli Project) by the like amount. 2. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have held that the funds at interest have been borrowed by your petitioner for the purpose of business of development and construction of residential project on land (Kandivli Project) and hence,...

Mr. Zarir Rustom Joshi, Vs. Mr. Burzor Rustom Joshi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR332; 2007(2)BomCR610; (2007)109BOMLR342

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. First Appeal was filed by Burzor Joshi. He was the sole appellant. There were seven respondents. But Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were the contesting respondents. The contesting respondents, in the appeal, have filed this Review Application. I am referring to the parties with their status and position in the appeal. Respondents mean, hereinafter, Applicants/Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the appeal and, opponent means Opponent Burzor Joshi in the Review Application.2. Rule was issued in this review application and I heard it finally. Apart from making oral submissions, the advocates for the respondents and opponent also gave written submissions. The review is in respect of my order dated 26th October 2005 in the appeals by which both the Appeals were allowed and disposed off. The Appeals were First Appeal No. 1066 of 2005 and First Appeal No. 1135 of 2005. Both the appeals were filed by opponent Burzor Joshi.3. Two grounds have been raised by the respondents in the re...