Mumbai Court April 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shri Atul Sunderji Dadhia Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Ad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR952
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The order of detention dated 10.7.2006 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority, hereinafter referred to as 'the Detaining Authority', in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, 'the COFEPOSA Act') is under challenge in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition has been filed by one Atul Dadhia, a friend of detenu Jayendra Chandulal Thakkar alias Jitendra Chimanlal Thakkar. The order of detention was made on 10.7.2006. It is based on the grounds of detention dated 10.7.2006, recording that it was necessary to detain the detenu with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling goods.2. The order of detention and the grounds of detention, both dated 10.7.2006, were served on the detenu on 12.7.2006. The subjective satisfaction...
Biddle Sawyer Ltd. Vs. Chemical Employees Union and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR586; (2007)109BOMLR823; [2007(114)FLR496]; 2007(5)MhLj618
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The present petition had been referred to us by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice with regard to a dispute about the interpretation of Section 2(cc) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute arises from conflicting judgments of this Court. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has brought to our notice the judgment of a Learned Single Judge in the case of Voltas Employees Union, Mumbai v. Voltas Limited, Bombay and Anr. (2003) 1 CLR 205. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:The definition of 'closure' has been included in the I.D. Act by an amendment of 1982. This amendment is in terms different from the meaning attributed by the Apex Court to the word 'closure' in the Express Newspapers. There the Apex Court has held that closure meant not only closing down place of business but the business itself and that indicated the final and irrevocable termination of the business itself. Closure as defined under the I.D. act means ...
Indian Airlines Limited a Public Limited Company Vs. V.N. Jalpur and N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR317; 2007(5)BomCR796; (2007)109BOMLR1038; [2007(114)FLR816]; 2007(4)MhLj566
V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order passed in Approval Application No. 16/1994 arising out of Reference No. NTB-1/90 and order passed in Misc. Application No. 1 of 2004 dated 21/04/1999, 18/12/2003 and 07/1/2004 respectively.FACTS:2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Writ Petition are as under:3. The Respondent No. 1 was working as Traffic Assistant with the Petitioner -Company sometime between 17/11/1992 and 21/11/1992. It is alleged that he had singed refund vouchers which were prepared by Ajay Mukherjee, as an authorized officer though he was not authorized to sign the said vouchers. A charge-sheet was issued against the Respondent No. 1. An inquiry was held. However, according to the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 1 did not attend the inquiry and, therefore, an ex parte inquiry was conducted against the Respondent No. 1 and, thereafter, a show cause notice was sent to the Respondent No. 1 in which punishment of d...
Empire Industries Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Companies ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR855; 2007(5)MhLj565
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Respondents dated 2/8/2003 and 4/12/2004. FACTS: 3. Brief facts are as under.4. The Petitioner -Company entered into leave and license agreement with Industrial Investment Limited for a period of 33 months i.e. from 01/03/2002 ton 01/12/2004. This leave and license agreement was executed on 28/02/2002. The Petitioner paid stamp duty of Rs. 1,60,000/- on the said leave and license agreement under Article 36A(b) read with Article 36A(a)(ii) of Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 (For short 'the said Act'). 5. A demand notice was served on the Petitioner dated 04/04/2002 whereby the 2nd Respondent informed the Petitioner that the stamp duty payable on the leave and license agreement was Rs. 4,55,020/- and after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- which was already paid,...
In Re: You Telecom India Private Limited; in Re: You Broadband Network ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: [2007]141CompCas43(Bom); (2008)1CompLJ276(Bom); [2007]77SCL161(Bom)
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The sanction of the Court is sought to a scheme of amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The transferor is the Petitioner before the Court in Company Petition 64 of 2007 while the transferee is the Petitioner in Company Petition 65 of 2007. The scheme of amalgamation contemplates the amalgamation of the transferor with the transferee together with the assets and liabilities. The shareholders of the transferor are to be allotted shares in the transferee in accordance with an exchange ratio which has been agreed upon by the shareholders. The Court has been informed that both the transferor and the transferee have two shareholders each who have granted their consent to the scheme of amalgamation. The only shareholder of non-cumulative redeemable preference shares in the transferor has also granted his consent. In both the Company Petitions, notices were undertaken to be furnished to the secured creditors. The Court has been informed that...
Sawhney Export House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC344
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dt. 26.7.2005 which upheld the order-in-original vide which refund claim filed by the appellant was rejected.2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. The appellant has sent a letter dt. 29.3.2007 addressed to the Registry stating that they had made a prayer for transfer of this appeal to Delhi Bench as the Managing Director was a Senior Citizen and they would be in a better position to prosecute the appeal at Delhi Bench.It also states that a transfer application made earlier was rejected and still the appellant feels that the same should be reviewed and the matter may be transferred to Delhi as prayed in earlier applications.3. The Ld. DR submits that once the transfer application has already been dismissed, the question of making another application for transfer of the case Delhi Bench does not arise. As regards the merits of the case, the Ld. DR submits that the issue involved in the case is regarding the ref...
Bharat Garments and Textiles Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC218
1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 9,86,102/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, we find that it is possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so after granting the prayer for waiver.2. The demand is confirmed on the ground that condition (v)(a) of Notification 203/92 in respect of value based advance licences was violated by the appellants for the reason that they took modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final products. We find that the case of the appellants throughout has been that out of the four bills of entry relevant in this case, one of them pertained to import under quantity based advance licences for which the relevant notification was Notification 204/92 and in respect of the remaining three bills of entry with regard to Notification 203/92, no credit had been availed and hence there was no contravention of any of the conditions of Notification 203/92 so as to warrant...
Pioneer Equity Trade (India) (P) Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Mum.)838
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 30th Nov., 2005 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-IV, Mumbai dt. 7th Oct., 2005 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 2002-03.2. The only dispute in this appeal relates to an addition of Rs. 1,49,01,871 made by the AO determining speculation loss within the meaning of Explanation to Section 73.3. Facts of the case leading to this dispute briefly are that the assessee is a share broker holding membership of National Stock Exchange. The main source of income of the assessee during the year was from share broking business. Besides, the assessee earned certain interest income on bank deposits. The assessee filed return of income on 31st Oct., 2002 declaring an income of Rs. 3,62,761 and that has been accepted by the AO. However the learned AO noted that the assessee had in earlier years purchased 11 lakhs shares of M/s Shonkh Technologies Ltd. These shares were held by the asses...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Nishith M. Desai
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Mum.)681
1. These four appeals pertain to the same assessee, involve some common issues and were heard together. As a matter of convenience, therefore, all the four appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.2. The common issues involved, which require our adjudication, in these four appeals are (i) whether the deduction under Section 80RRA of the IT Act, 1961, is to be allowed on the gross basis or on net basis? and (ii) in case the deduction under Section 80RRA is to be allowed on net basis, what are the principles governing allocation of expenses incurred which are to be reduced from the gross receipts.3. We will first take up the cross-appeals for the asst. yr. 2000-01.Both of these appeals are filed against order dt. 29th May, 2003 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act.4. The material facts of the case, as culled out from the orders of the authorities below, are like this. The assessee is proprietor of a well known law fir...
Tukaram Bapuji Datke Vs. Rajasthan R.N. Arts and Mithulalji Kacholiya ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR746; 2007(5)BomCR798
R.C. Chavan, J.1. The petitioner, a tutor in respondent No. 1 college under respondent No. 2 university, has sought declaration that he was entitled to placement in pay scale of Rs. 700-1,600 w.e.f. 01.07.1975 and the corresponding subsequent scales with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was employed as tutor in English in the pay scale of Rs. 250-400 w.e.f. 01.07.1969. Admittedly the petitioner does not hold second class master's degree. He was confirmed as a tutor by resolution dated 18.06.1971 on successful completion of probation. 3. The University Grants Commission recommended scale of Rs. 7001,600 for lecturers w.e.f. 01.07.1975. These scales were latter revised w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to Rs. 2,200-4,000. The State of Maharashtra had applied these scales of pay by Government Resolution dated 27.10.1977. The petitioner claimed that he was eligible and qualified for being appointed as a Lecturer in English and therefore, he was entitled to have his scale upgraded to Rs. 70016...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »