Mumbai Court April 2007 Judgments

Zelabai W/O Chintaman Chandasare Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR122; 2008(2)BomCR916; (2007)109BOMLR1029

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Heard counsel appearing for parties.2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of parties taken up for hearing.3. The petitioner's land was subjected to acquisition. The respondent No. 3/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon passed an award in respect of land Block No. 87/A/1, admeasuring 81 Ares, situated at village Bhilakhed, Deoli Bhoras, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. On the petitioner's motion a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894') was made. The Reference Court delivered judgment and award on 4th April, 2000. The State preferred an appeal bearing No. 365 of 2004 against the said award, which was admitted by this Court on 22nd March, 2003 along with the companion group-matters. 4. The petitioner states that execution petition bearing No. 287 of 2001 was filed in the Civil Court (Senior Division), Jalgaon. By an order dated 30th November, 2002 the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalgaon passed follow...

Bla Industries Private Ltd. Vs. Foundry Fuel Products Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR155(Bom); 2007(4)BomCR682

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present petition is under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, The Arbitration Act, 1996), filed by the petitioners after taking leave under Clause XII of Letters Patent Act. There is no challenge made to the same. Therefore, though agreement between the parties dated 6th April, 2004, has been executed at Dhanbad, & as petitioners office is at Mumbai, this court has jurisdiction to pass appropriate order.2. Admittedly, there is an agreement for arbitration between the parties. The petition for constitution of a arbitral Tribunal is pending. The submission is that since the agreement itself is under challenged, therefore, there is no question of constitution of arbitral Tribunal based on such agreement. This submission cannot be the reason to discard the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 at this stage. 3. Section 9 itself contemplate that before pending or after the constitution of the Tribunal based on the agree...

Dr. Narayan Keshaorao Puranik Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Secret ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR61; 2007(4)BomCR251; (2007)109BOMLR1083; 2007(4)MhLj384

A.H. Joshi, J.1. In this petition, Rule was issued with notice on interim relief by order dated 1-8-2006. Since the petition could not be heard on interim relief, the petitioner has filed Civil Application No. 1925 of 2007 for grant of provisional pension.2. The Civil Application No. 1925 of 2007 was listed on board, and was opposed by the respondents by filing affidavit. Hearing on Civil Application was adjourned twice, and on 12-4-2007 after hearing for some time, it became clear that petitioner's entitlement of interim relief depended upon construction of 1st proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Maharashtra Pension Rules, and, therefore, it was conceded by both sides that it would be proper to hear the petition on merits instead of personal hearing.3. This Court, therefore, recorded on 12-4-2007 as follows:1. This petition is taken on board for hearing of Civil Application No. 1925 of 2007.2. We find that the point involved is about construction of Rule 66 of Maharashtra Civil Serv...

Mohammed Farooque Shahdat Vs. Kantaben G. Savalia and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)BC240

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard Mr. Shaikh, the learned Counsel for the applicant. Perused the impugned judgment.2. The applicant is original complainant. According to him, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who are partners of M/s. Siddhi Metal & Ton Containers had purchased certain goods from the applicant and towards repayment of unpaid price of the goods, they issued a cheque dated 25th June, 2001 for amount of Rs. 8,50,160/- payable to M/s. A.S. Steel Corporation, which is also a partnership firm. Applicant is partner of the said firm. The cheque was presented for encashment but it was dishonoured with remarks 'Funds Insufficient'. Therefore, on 2nd July, 2001 demand notice was issued to the respondents by Registered Post A.D. as well as under Certificate of Posting. However, notice was returned with remarks 'Not known-returned to sender'. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 failed to make the payment and, therefore, applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against t...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.V. Enterprise

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]304ITR175(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This application filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was admitted on April 15,1998, on the following questions of law.1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in cancelling the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no evidence on record to prove that at any stage the Department made any attempt to prove that the amount offered for taxation was concealed income of the assessee?2. The assessment year involved herein in the assessment year 1984-85.3. The assessee was dealing in iron and steel articles and had effected sales to the sister concern amounting to Rs. 2,91,625. There was a search action initiated at the residential an...

Shri Siddheshwar Deosthan Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide letter dated 20.3.2007, the appellants seek permission to withdraw the above appeal. Leave granted - appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....

Marine Container Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC463

1. The brief facts of the case are that one Shri Nitesh Ashok Sadarangani obtained a photocopy of Import-Export Code Allotment letter of M/s. Fashion Variations, a proprietary concern of his friend Shri Abdul Samad Kapadia and prepared the customs related documents under his own signature; and filed a Bill of Entry for the imports of goods like cookies, biscuits. For this he took a blank Bill of Entry signed by the owner of M/s. Vishvanath Shipping Agencies and filled all the details in the name of M/s. Fashions Variations as an importer and endorsed the same under his signature. He personally took the Bill of Entry to Nhava Sheva Customs for clearance of imported goods and later destroyed all documents relating to imports till date, including copies of assessed and duty paid Bill of Entry, etc. Investigation revealed that M/s. Marine Container Services Pvt. Ltd., a shipping agent who arranged the transport of the shipment from Rotterdam to Nhava Sheva Port, had submitted the copy of ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. South Asia Tyres Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC291

1. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad, the Revenue is in appeal. The respondents i.e. M/s. South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of tyres falling under Ch.40 of CETA 1985. The respondents, during the period July 97 to December 97 have claimed credit of duty on inputs i.e. rubber, fabric, caron black, wire, pigments and chemicals etc. in terms of Modvat rules.2. After consuming the inputs, these packing material / containers were cleared by them either as such or as scrap without payment of duty and without issuing Central Excise gate-pass / invoices under Rule 52A and without following proper procedure. The Department alleged that they have suppressed the facts of clearance of such packing material with intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty. It is alleged that during the period from June 93 to November 97, the assessee have evaded Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 6,59,756/- on the cle...

Mashreq Bank Psc Vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 10-1-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), in the matter of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1996-97.2. In the first ground of appeal, the main grievance raised by the assessee is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer "of not accepting the appellant's contention that in view of the provisions of art ' 7(3) of the Convention between the Government of United Arab Emirates and the Government of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the tax treaty'), no disallowance is required to be made in computing the total income in respect of expenses attributable to its PE in India".3. Briefly stated, the material facts, so far as relevant to this grievance of the assessee, are like this. The assessee is a non-resident banking company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates.The assessee is carrying on business in...

Union Bank of India Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Mum.)720

1. The short issue requiring our adjudication in these appeals is whether or not the interest component of a finance leasing amount received by the assessee bank is liable to be included in chargeable interest' within meaning of Section 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 (the Act, in short). The assessment years involved are 1996-97 to 1998-99 and the impugned assessments are framed under Section 8(3) of the Act.2. The assessee before us is a nationalised bank. In the course of its carrying on business, it entered into several leasing transactions. The assets were claimed to have been owned by the assessee bank and accordingly, depreciation was claimed in respect of those assets.Revenue, on the other hand, was of the view that these leasing transactions are de facto finance transactions and the actual ownership of the assets actually vested in the lessee. The depreciation was on that basis declined by the AO. Accordingly, a component of the lease rentals received by the assessee bank ...