Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

Master Leonard Mark Hillario Son of Seby Hillario, Through His Mother ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3627

N.A. Britto, J.1. Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both the parties. 2. Admit. By consent heard forthwith. 3. This revision petition is directed against order dated 11.10.2006 of the learned Sessions Judge, Margao, by which, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the respondent herein and dismissed the application for maintenance filed on behalf of the applicant. 4. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of this revision petition filed against the said Order of the learned Sessions Judge. 5. The applicant was born to his mother Maria Fernandes/Pw1, on 25.04.2002 and was delivered by Dr. Surendra P. Verenkar.6. The applicant claiming to be the illegitimate son of the respondent, filed an application dated 01.07.2002, through his mother, said Smt. Maria Fernandes, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,000/-per month as maintenance. The claim of the applicant was that he was named as Mark Hillario and that the respondent who is the neighbour of his mother, had good relation...

M.V. Khadilkar and anr. Vs. Goyal Iron and Steel Corpn. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC202; 2007CriLJ1764

ORDERA.P. Lavande, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. All these six applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are being disposed of by common judgment since common question of law is involved and the facts are almost identical in all these matters.3. Respondent No. 1 filed six private criminal cases bearing Criminal Complaint Nos. 150/03, 151/03, 152/03, 153/03, 154/03 and 155/03 against M/s. Kulkarni Engineering Associates Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act and four others including the present applicants alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The complaints were filed for dishonour of cheques issued by M/s. Kulkarni Engineering Associates Ltd. to respondent No. 1 in the year 2002. Learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of Mr. Suresh Dayaram Dhabekar, duly constituted attorney of respondent No. 1, Issued process against the five...

Kedar Shivkumar Kale Vs. Digamber Shridhar Mhapsekar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR65; 2007(4)BomCR325; 2007(4)MhLj77

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties. Admit.2. Mr. Vashi waives notice for respondent No. 1. Mr. S. Wassoodev waives notice for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Mr. K.S. Bapat waives notice for respondent Nos. 22, 27, 28, 30 and 6 to 14.3. As short question is involved, appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent.4. This appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Order date 20th November 2006 in Notice of Motion No. 2927 of 2006 in Short Cause Suit No, 3714 of 2006, passed by the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay. By this impugned order, the trial Court has granted interim relief in favour of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff instituted suit before the trial Court for the following relief:a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare and hold further that the conducting of the meeting by the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 on 8-7-2006 and minutes of the said meeting annexed in Ex-F are absolutely illegal and bad in law.b) That this Hon'ble Court be ...

Hotel Maheshwari and anr. Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom143; 2007(4)ALLMR73; 2007(3)BomCR81

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 24th November 2006 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, below Exhibit 25 in Special Civil Suit No. 308/2004, vide which the application of the present petitioners for acceptance of the surety, as directed by the learned trial Court by order dated 7th March 2005, came to be rejected.3. The petitioner has filed a suit for perpetual injunction and declaration that the notice issuing cancellation of plot to the petitioner was not in accordance with law. Along with the suit, an application below Exhibit 5 also came to be filed. The same was allowed vide order dated 7th March 2005 on condition that the plaintiff shall furnish surety in respect of the amount due i.e. Rs. 33,37,836/- within one month from the date of the order. The said surety was not provided within a period of one month. Hence, the petitioner filed an app...

Kalpana Bharat Patil Vs. Bharat Onkar Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR74; 2007(3)BomCR85; II(2007)DMC734

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 7th October, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahada, below Exhibit 26 in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 7/2006, thereby rejecting the application of the present petitioner for stay of the said proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The petitioner/wife filed a petition for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty, being Hindu Marriage Petition No. 52/2005. Thereafter, the respondent/husband has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground of desertion. An application came to be filed by the petitioner/wife on the ground that the petition filed by the husband/wife was subsequent to that of the petitioner/wife and that since the lis was between the same parties and the issue involved in the matter was substantially the same, it was necessary that the subsequent proceedings be...

Jcit, Special Range-50 Vs. Gtc Industries Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)112ITD231(Mum.)

1. The only issue arising in this appeal is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the application of the assessee Under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the ground that intimation issued Under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act cannot be rectified after the issue of notice Under Section 143(2) of the Act in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. 222 ITR 151.2. Briefly stated the facts are, that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 20.11.1997, declaring loss of Rs. 61,79,21,010/-. The said return was processed Under Section 143(1)(a) on 20.7.1998 and the intimation Under Section 143(1)(a) was issued on that date determining the net loss of Rs. 47,21,63,130/- after making adjustment in respect of the following amounts.(i) Provisions for doubtful debts Rs. 13,70,72,460/-(ii) Difference of provisions for gratuity and actually paid Rs. 1,54,420/-(iii) Disallowance Unde...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Dhl Operations Bv

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. By way of this order, we seek to dispose of petition dated 24-8-2006, filed by the revenue appellant praying for admission of the following additional grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in concluding that the assessee has no permanent establishment in India. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to consider that a part of entire revenue arising to the assessee from inbound and outbound consignments were taxable in India, as royalties under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Expln. 2(1)(i) and/or (iv) and read with art. 12 of the India Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to consider that remaining part of the entire revenue arising to the assessee from inbound and outbound consignments were taxable in India, as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) read with Expl...

Narayan Karwa and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi),

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR547; (2007)209CTR(Bom)204; [2008]296ITR545(Bom); 2008(1)MhLj775

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The petitioners who claim to be the tenants of a bungalow known as Kamal Kunj, situated at Bomanji Petit Road, Mumbai - 400 036 ('disputed property' for short) have filed this petition mainly to challenge two orders passed by the Tax Recovery Officer ('TRO' for short), namely order dated 9th July, 1991 and order dated 11th July, 1991. By order dated 9th July, 1991, the TRO has rejected the application made by the petitioner under Rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) for setting aside the auction sale of the disputed property held on 7th November, 1990. By order dated 11th July, 1991, the TRO has confirmed the auction sale of the disputed property in favour of the respondent No. 4. During the pendency of this writ petition, the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 9th July, 1991 has been dismissed by the C.I.T. Hence, the petition has been amended to challenge the said order passed by C.I.T. as well.2. Th...

Janprabha Offset Works Through the Partner Vs. Savra Shramik Sangh Thr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR91; (2007)109BOMLR727; 2007(4)MhLj97

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Both these petitions assail the judgment and order passed by the learned Industrial Court, Jalgaon in Complaint ULP No. 482/1999, thereby allowing the complaint of the respondent union. W.P. No. 854/2003 is filed by the Janprabha Offset works, which is the respondent No. 1 in the original complaint, whereas, W.P. No. 925/2003 is filed by Dainik Janashakti Trust,Jalgaon, which was respondent No. 2 in the original complaint. 2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present petition are as under:That, the respondent union/complainants filed a complaint alleging therein that the complainants were members of a registered union. It was alleged that the respondent No. 2 in the original complaint were publishing Daily Janashakti and it was printed by Janashakti Offset works i.e. original respondent No. 1. It was alleged that the respondent No. 2 (namely Shri N.B. Patil), Manager of the Dainik Janashakti Trust, was looking after all the affairs of the newspaper. It was alleged...

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Smt. Alka Agarwal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom113; 2007(3)ALLMR19; 2007(3)BomCR129

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This Second Appeal by the original defendants is directed against concurrent judgments of the courts below by which a suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of possession and mesne profits stands decreed. The plaintiff is the owner of a plot in dispute. Her predecessor in title had leased out the suit plot to the appellant-defendants on 1-1-1973 vide registered lease deed. The plot was to be used for the defendants retail outlet of petroleum products (petrol pump service station). In 1985, the plaintiff became the owner of the suit plot by virtue of a gift deed executed by her predecessor 4n title. Admittedly, she was recognized as a landlady by the defendants.3. As per the terms of the lease deed the parties had agreed to renew the lease for two terms of 10 years each after expiry of the first 20 years term subject to the right of the plaintiff to terminate the lease on account of a breach of conditions ther...