Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. By this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has requested for rectification/recalling of the order of the Tribunal passed in the case of the assessee in ITA No. 679/M/05 for the assessment year 2001-02 order dated 29-3-2006.2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal has upheld the taxability of Rs. 30.78 crores received by the assessee in relation to NMPT in the assessment year 2001 -02 without determining the issue of applicability of Section 176(3 A) of the Income Tax Act,, 1961. He submitted that the order of the Tribunal that accrual source of arbitration award amount of Rs. 33.78 crores is not from the order of the court is contrary to the decisions of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. and All India Reporter Ltd. and decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Princess Maheshwari Devi of Pratapgarh v. CIT. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Tribunal has erroneously h...

Prabhat Mahadav Naik Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ2569

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. These two appeals are preferred by original accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively challenging the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 328 & 379 of I.P.C. to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- on the first count and to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-on the second count, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Greater Bombay (Court No. 35) in Sessions Case No. 248/05.2. In all six persons, including the present appellants, were put to trial for the offences punishable under Section 328 and 379 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. Out of them, accused No. 1 Prabhat, No. 2 Rajesh and No. 5 Anand were convicted and sentenced as above, while accused Nos.3, 4 & 6 were acquitted. Accused No. 5 has not preferred any appeal, as per the information given by the office. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that P.W.1 Sandeep Dhananjay Awtade, a resident of Tasgaon, Dist. Sangli, used to come to Bombay for purchase of...

George Thomas Thakkeyil Vs. Sci-tech Centre,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR95; 2007(3)BomCR86; [2007(113)FLR1077]; 2007(4)MhLJ200

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Labour Court by judgment and order dated 12th February, 1998 whereby the Court held that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and on that ground, dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. He is also challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, in Revision Application filed by him against the aforesaid order whereby the Industrial Court dismissed the revision application.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working in the capacity as a clerk though he was appointed as an Executive (Administration) on the basic salary Rs. 3881/-per month. The learned Counsel submitted that in the cross-examination in the evidence of witness of respondent No. 1, Shri M.J. Thomas, he has stated in the cross-examination that chargesheet was issued in February 1993 against the petitioner and thereafter, enquiry was conduc...

Dhondiram Bhimrao Shelke Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Pandhar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2007)DMC279

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Dhondiram Bhimrao Shelke, impugning the judgment and order passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No. 113 of 2001. By the impugned judgment and order, the accused has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. For the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for the period of three months. Both the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted.2. The prosecution case was as under:a) The...

Karan @ Baasha Shyam Pawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ2573

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/original accused No. 4 Karan @ Basha Shyam Pawar impugning the judgment and order passed by the 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag on 16.8.2002 in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2001. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial court has convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. On these two counts, he has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer R.I. for two years. The original accused Nos. 1,2,3 and 5 to 9 who were tried alongwith the appellant were acquitted.2. The facts of the prosecution case were as under:a) P.W. No. 1-Irshad Ismail Mulla was residing at Village Tempale, Taluka Mangaon, District Raigad alongwith his parents, brother and wife. On 20.9.2000, at about 11.30p.m. P.W. No. 1 Irshad was sleeping in the hall of his house. His mother Khairunissa was also sleeping in the hall alongwith P.W. N...

Arun Ashruba Mhaske Vs. Atmaram Dattu Mhaske and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR167; 2007(6)BomCR793; 2007(4)MhLj157

ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Resume of the relevant facts, may be summarised as follows:(A). Present respondents 1 to 6 were the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 208 of 1976 ('RCS') filed for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. Present respondents 7 and 8 are original defendants 1 and 2 and, present petitioner is the original defendant No. 6, present respondent No. 9 is the original defendant No. 3, present respondent 10 is the original defendant No. 4 and present respondent No. 1 is the original defendant No. 5. Parties hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, are being referred to their status in the RCS.(B). Learned Civil Judge J.D. Beed ('trial Court') after recording evidence decreed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 10-8-1983. Subject-matter of the suit is undisputedly agricultural lands. This judgme...

T.V. and Radio Publicity Services Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR341; 2007(4)MhLj315

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This appeal arises from order dated 16th November, 1998 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 344 of 1998 in relation to Award No. 33 of 1998. The impugned order is sought to be challenged on three grounds. Firstly, that the learned Arbitrator could not have proceeded with the arbitration proceedings as the person, who was appointed as Arbitrator under the earlier order, had not ceased to be the Arbitrator on the day Shri D.S. Nagarcenkar was appointed as Arbitrator. It is the contention on behalf of the appellant that Shri Nagarcenkar was appointed by order dated 24th February, 1997 whereas the earlier Arbitrator had resigned only on 10th April, 2007. Consequently, the entire proceedings are to be held as bad in law. Secondly, Shri Nagarcenkar was appointed as Arbitrator by the Deputy Director General of All India Radio when in fact in terms of the agreement between the parties, it was the Director General who was required to appoint the Arbitrator and, therefor...

Yusuf Ali Khan Rashid Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Nazema Begum D/O Nisar Ahm ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR751; 2007(6)BomCR785; 2007(4)MhLj141

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Resume of relevant facts may be summarised as follows:(A). Respondent No. 1 Nazema Begum had filed Appeal No. 205 of 1996 ('appeal') under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 ('Act of 1977') and Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 ('Rules of 1981') against Dr. Zakir Hussain Education Society, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur ('the Society') through its President and Dr. Zakir Hussain Urdu Primary School, Ahmedpur ('the School') through its Head Master. This appeal was allowed by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad on 7-3-2003.(B). Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed Misc. Application No. 65 of 2005 before the School Tribunal, Solapur. She also filed an application under Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') for transfer of the decree/order passed by the School Tribunal. Said application was granted on 1-10-2005 by...

Beryl Murzello and ors. Vs. Ramchandra Bhairo Mane and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR397; 2007(5)MhLj708

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Both these appeals have been filed against the dismissal of notices of motion taken out by the appellants-plaintiffs for decree on alleged admission by the original defendant No. 3 about the rights of the appellants to the property in question.3. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants that the respondent No. 3 (original defendant No. 3) has admitted that the earlier decree was obtained by fraud and that defendant No. 3 has no right whatsoever to the property in question and that, therefore, on this admission itself, the appellants' claim of the ownership right to the property in question should be decreed as against the defendant No. 3, invoking the provisions of Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.4. The claim of the appellants is disputed by other defendants while contending that the st...

Hitesh Dasiram Murkute Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR784; 2007(5)MhLj454

Chavan R.C., J.1. Rule. By consent made returnable forthwith.2. By this petition the petitioner, a student of engineering with respondent No. 4 college, takes exception to the communication dated 8.12.2005 by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, informing the petitioner that he was not entitled to have his claim as belonging to caste Kalar (OBC) examined by the committee since he was a migrant. The petitioner, therefore, seeks direction to the committee to decide his caste claim within stipulated time since absence of decision of his caste claim has hampered his educational career. He also sought direction to the university and college to declare his result of first year examination, to which he was provisionally admitted, subject to verification of his caste claim, and to allow him to continue his education as a candidate belonging to O.B.C., or in the alternative as a candidate of open category.3. Respondent No. 3 university filed submission stating that failure of the petitioner to produce...