Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

Joint Cit, Sr19 Vs. Walchand Capital Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These cross appeals arise from the order dated 2-7-1999 of Commissioner (Appeals)-Central V, Mumbai, and are disposed of by this common order as under: 2. The first ground of appeal in both the appeals pertains to determination of income under the head 'Capital gains on sale of shares'. Ground No. 1raised by the assessee is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learnedCommissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the computation of average cost of post 1-4-1981 - shares of Premier Automobiles Ltd., made by the learned assessing officer while computing the long-term capital gains arising on sale thereof. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learnedCommissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to compute long-termcapital gain on the indexed cost of the market value of shares as against the "average cost" taken by the assessing officer for computation of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of Pr...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Mum.)328

1. These cross-appeals arising from the order dt. 9th Jan., 2004 of CIT(A)-VIII, Mumbai, are disposed of by this common order as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,81,710 being the expenses incurred by the assessee pertaining to its Aurangabad unit where no business activity was carried out by the assessee during the year under consideration without appreciating the facts of the case.3. The facts are that the assessee company is engaged in manufacturing of pharmaceutical formulations. This manufacturing activity is carried out in three units viz., Daman 1, Daman 2 and Aurangabad. The assessee is also engaged in some trading activity. The expenses which are subject-matter of the ground of appeal raised by the Department have been incurred by the assessee at Aurangabad unit. The Aurangabad unit commenced manufacturing sometime in the year 1975-76 and as part of expansion of business, new units were...

Miss Fawia Menezes Mesquita and Miss Belinda Nunes Vs. the State of Go ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR757

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Heard. 2. At the outset, Mr. Nadkarni, the learned Counsel for the respondents states that the prayer Clauses (A) and (B) are infructuous since the Government has withdrawn the Notification dated 10.08.2006. 3. Mr. Thali, the learned Counsel for the petitioners however prays for the relief in terms of prayer Clause (G) and prayer Clause (I) which read as follows:G. To issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondents to prepare the Land Use Register and Land Use Map in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, and the Goa Town and Goa Country Planning (Planning and Development Authorities) Rules, 1977, before preparing or revising any Regional Plan or any Development Plan or any other plan under the said Act and the Rules. I. To issue a direction to the respondent No. 4, restraining the respondent No. 4 from granting any permissions based on the Dr...

icici Lombard General Insurance Company Vs. Parasmani Roadlines Pvt. L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR311

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The Petitioner is the insurer of a consignment of goods consisting of 10 jumbo bags each containing 900 kg of Carbon Black GPF. The consignment was supplied by Cabot India Limited to J.K. Industries Ltd. in the State of Rajasthan. The goods were transported by the Respondent under a Lorry Receipt dated 7th June 2003. The goods were insured by J.K. Industries Ltd. with the Petitioner under an Insurance Policy of 6th June 2003. By a letter dated 13th June 2003, the insured lodged a claim in the amount of Rs. 3,69,363/for loss and damage caused to the goods in transit. A certificate of damage/shortage was issued on 11th June 2003. An amount of Rs. 1,71,439/was paid by the Petitioner to the insured on 31st July 2003. The Petitioner has been subrogated to the rights and remedies of the insured in accordance with the terms of the policy. 2. A notice under Section 434 of the Companies' Act, 1956 was addressed by the Petitioner to the Company on 26th July 2005 which was...

Bapu Maruti Rakshe and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR176; 2007(3)BomCR615

Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioners have approached this Court as the members of respondent No. 2 -a notified society. Pursuant to an enquiry conducted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.C.S. Act'.) an order came to be passed appointing an Administrator. That order was challenged in an appeal which came to be dismissed on 17.2.2006. In the revision preferred, the Revisional Authority, on 15.7.2006 stayed the order dated 25.7.2005 and consequently the Managing Committee had taken back the charge.3. The Administrator during his term in office had prepared a draft voters list and submitted it to the Assistant Registrar -respondent No. 3. According to the petitioners while preparing the provisional voters list, the Administrator failed to include the names of the petitioners and 36 other eligible members of the society. The provisional voters list was not published and as such they had no opportuni...

Sindhu W/O Machindra Jagtap Vs. Collector and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR133; 2007(4)MhLj180

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. One Smt. Ashabai widow of the brother of the present petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 44/1992. In the said suit, the present petitioner was added as defendant No. 4. The learned Civil Judge, J.D., Beed decreed the suit on 30-6-1995. In the said suit, it was declared that the defendant No. 4-present petitioner was entitled for 1/33rd share in the agricultural lands.3. It is the contention of the petitioner that though a precept is sent to the respondent No. 1-Collector, Beed, for effecting partition, no steps are taken by the respondent No. 1-Collector, Beed. It is submitted that under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Collector is duty bound to act upon the said precept.4. As such, a limited grievance of the petitioner is that the precept which is sent to the respondent No. 1-Collector, Beed, for effecting the partition should be acted upon by him.5. In view o...

Khushal S/O Narayanrao Mundhe Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR111; 2007(4)BomCR350; (2007)4BOMLR350; 2007(4)MhLj333

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing immediately.3. The petitioner challenges the recovery certificate issued by the respondent No. 4, on 5-3-2005. The copy of the recovery certificate is annexed with the petition. It seems that the recovery certificate is issued by the respondent No. 4, for recovery of amount of Rs. 2,00,969.11. From para No. 3 of the recovery certificate, it appears that oral instructions were given to the President/Secretary/Office bearers of respondent No. 2 for initiation of the proceedings, for obtaining recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1960' for short). Despite the insistence by the respondent No. 4, no such application was filed by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 4, therefore, initiated the proceeding under Sub-section ...

Ge Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Jagannath T ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom4; 2007(3)ALLMR526; 2007(4)BomCR259

Dalvi R.S., J.1. The Claimant/decree-holder has applied by way of the above Judge's Order, for appointment of Court Receiver under the provisions of Section 51 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with power to sell the said flat by public auction or private treaty in execution of the Award dated 30.4.2006 obtained by them. No cause why this mode of execution is opted by the decree-holder is shown. The Award is for Rs. 7,74,072.79 along with interest @ 16% per annum thereon. The flat sought to be sold is secured by an equitable mortgage. 2. It is argued on behalf of the decree-holder that since 5 modes of execution are specified in Section 51 of C.P.C., the decree-holder is entitled to a choice and an option and that choice is absolute and cannot be refused by Court. That contention is incorrect.3. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Hemendra Nath Roy Chowdhury v. Prakash Chandra Ghosh : AIR1932Cal189 considered in detail the cases that arise in execution b...

icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Vs. Afl P. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]141CompCas188(Bom); [2008]84SCL52(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. A consignment of air conditioning systems was transported through the respondent-company by Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (India) Ltd., under three lorry receipts dated October 29, 2004. The goods were insured by Hitachi with the petitioner under a policy of insurance dated June 1, 2004. Hitachi lodged a claim in the amount of Rs. 1,75,000 with the petitioner under a letter dated November 22, 2004, on account of loss suffered by the consignor. The respondent had issued a certificate of damage/shortage/non-delivery. Hitachi made a claim in the amount of Rs. 1,70,342 with the petitioner under the insurance cover provided by the petitioner. The claim was paid by the petitioner on January 25, 2005. By a declaration executed on January 12, 2005, by Hitachi in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was subrogated to the rights and remedies of the insured under the policy of insurance. On July 26, 2005, the petitioner issued a statutory notice under Sections 433 and...

Ashok Narayan SaThe Shree Shivaji Mahavidhyalay Vs. the Education Offi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR27; 2007(3)BomCR241; (2007)109BOMLR627; [2007(114)FLR808]; 2007(4)MhLj358

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur dated 31.12.1994 fixing the seniority and declaring the Petitioner to be junior to Respondent No. 5. This decision was taken by the Education Officer after Respondent No. 5 had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1717 of 1994 complaining about the fixation of his seniority. This Court had disposed off the aforesaid writ petition with specific directions to the Education Officer to decide the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 herein, regarding their inter se seniority, within a stipulated time. The Education Officer found that the grievance of Respondent No. 5 was correct and that he was senior to the Petitioner. Aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioner has challenged the order.2. The facts giving rise to the present Petition are as follows:The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Maharashtra Vidyalaya, Barsi on 2...