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.
Chandrakant Govind Kotkar Wadilal Vs. Bombay Intelligence Security (In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR434; 2007(3)BomCR48; [2007(114)FLR113]; 2007(4)MhLj490
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The Petitioner was serving with Respondent No. 1 as a watchman since 1980. The services of the Petitioner were terminated with effect from 23/07/1990. He raised an industrial dispute for his reinstatement and consequential benefits and, therefore, the Government was pleased to refer the matter to the Labour Court vide Reference (IDA) No. 568 of 1992. The Labour Court by an award dated 23/12/1996 directed that the Petitioner be reinstated with full back wages and with continuity of service with effect from 23/07/1990. The award was published by the State Government on 12/02/1997. 2. After the award was published, it is alleged by the Respondent No. 1 that there was a settlement between the parties on 17/02/1997 whereby the Petitioner gave up his right of reinstatement with full back-wages and that an amount Rs 15,000/-was paid by cheque alongwith cash amount of Rs 10,000/-in the presence of representative of the Petitioner Shri Lobo and the representative of the Compan...
Smt. Narmadabai Rama Kamalcha Vs. Smt. Godabai N. Manjucha, (Since Dec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR501; 2007(6)BomCR373; 2007(4)MhLj696
Roshan Dalvi, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed impugning the judgment and order dated 8th June 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge, under which First Appeal No. 569 of 1985 has been dismissed.2. The Appellant and the Respondent are two sisters. They were legal representatives of one Mahadeo Shinwar Kamalcha. The said Mahadeo had one son Shinwar, who pre-deceased him. 3. The Appellant and the Respondent, as the only heirs of the said Mahadeo, are entitled equally to his estate and properties. There is one property for which both the sisters are entitled to an equal share. 4. It is the case of the Appellant that her father executed an Agreement in favour of her husband during his lifetime on 5.2.1950, under which he agreed to give half share in the property to her husband, who was Mahadeo's son-in-law, if he maintained the father and took care of his business. The Agreement is not registered. 5. The husband has not sued for specific performance of the Agreement. The Appellan...
Munirabad Chemicals Company Vs. B.C. Mody Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Regist ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR634; [2008]142CompCas589(Bom); 2007(4)MhLj893; [2007]78SCL307(Bom)
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 16-3-1999 passed by the learned Company Judge, dismissing the winding up petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the notice of demand was not served at address of the registered office of the respondent No. 1-company.2. The respondent No. 1-company was incorporated with its registered office at Room No. 22, Second Floor, 105, Apollo Street, Bombay. The registered office of the company was shifted from the original place to Khetan Bhawan, 5th Floor, 198, J. Tata Road, Churchgate Reclamation, Bombay-20 in March, 1970. Notice of change of address of the registered office was given to the Registrar of Companies on 2-4-1970 in accordance with Section 146 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the particulars of the change of address were duly recorded by him in the records.3. The appellant has obtained a decree in the sum of Rs. 2,13,500/- against the respondent No. 1 in Suit No. 1027 of 1978 on 24-4-19...
Bhaskar S/O Bhaurao Solankhe Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3139
S.P. Kukday, J.1. Appellant, his mother Gangubai (accused no. 2), brother Balasaheb (accused No. 3) and sister-in-law Vandana (accused No. 4) were tried for the offences punishable under Section 302, 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC'). Appellant is convicted of these offences. For the first offence he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. For the second offence, appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and, for the third offence, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. Sentence of fine carries default stipulation for non-payment. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are acquitted of all the offences.2. Facts of the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass. Rekha (since deceased) was daughter of Maroti Madhaorao Kadam of village Kohali, Paluda Hadgaon. She married appellant who is native of village Hastara, in the year 1998. At the time of...
Mukand Staff and Officers' Association Vs. Mukand Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR607
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. Admit. The learned Advocate for the respondents waives service. By consent, heard forthwith.2. This appeal arises from the order dated 15-10-2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 2516 of 2006. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents herein against the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 19-8-2006 whereby the application dated 19-6-2006 filed by the appellants herein in Reference (IT) No. 76 of 2001 was allowed. The said application was filed by the appellants seeking to introduce certain pleadings, particularly on the point of 'stopple' and 'community of interest' between the workmen and the non-workmen from amongst the monthly rated staff. The learned Single Judge while observing that the question as regards the community of interest and of stopple was specifically the subject-matter of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff and Officers' Association reported in ...
Syed Akbar S/O Syed NooroddIn Jahagirdar Vs. Syed Abdul Haq S/O Syed N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR590; 2008(3)BomCR860; 2007(6)MhLj815
ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. V.C. Solshe for the petitioner and learned Counsel Mrs. A. N. Ansari for respondent No. 1.2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, was defendant No. 2 in Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1993. The respondent, in this petition, was plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1993. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are not represented since no notice was issued to them. Respondent No. 1 had filed caveat that is how learned Counsel Mrs. Ansari is appearing for respondent No. 1. In this writ petition, we are concerned with original plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1 and the defendant No. 2, who is petitioner. Thus, the parties, herein after, are referred to their status as plaintiff and defendant No. 2.3. Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1993 was filed by plaintiff against the defendants for partition and separate possession of his share in relation to the suit properties. It is admitted fact that the suit properties consist agricultural lands as well as resi...
Jeena and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC240
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-original dated 21/11/2035 vide which a penalty is imposed on the appellant under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that appellant is CHA and Courier services provider and registered with the customs authorities for both the services provided by them. The appellant filed a bill of entry on behalf of M/s Fedexpress, a courier agency for the clearance of a consignment of documents based upon the information given by the said Fedexpress. The appellant presented the documents to the authorities for processing and on examination it was found that the consignment declared as documents, was of books with a concealed cavity in which diamonds were concealed. The customs authorities seized the consignment and the diamonds and investigated the matter. After recording statements of various persons the authorities issued show cause notices to different noticees, the appellant being amongst them.The...
Bhalla Techtran Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC203
1. After hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 13,36,230/-, we found that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so since the main grievance of the applicant is that of contravention of principles of natural justice. Hence we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeal for final hearing.2. The issue relates to project import. The appellants had applied for registration of their contract under Project Import Regulations, 1986 for assessment of goods imported for the purpose of setting up of High Technology Spring Manufacturing Unit at Ghaziabad at concessional rate of duty under CTH 9801 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The contract was registered and the goods were assessed to duty provisionally under the above heading on the importers executing bonds and bank guarantees and subject to their fulfilling the conditions and regulations laid down under the Project Import Regulations. Although t...
R.K. Steel Syndicate Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Mum.)353
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dt. 16th March, 2005 passed by the CIT, under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act', in short). The grievances raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT erred in ignoring the fact that the issue in respect of which proceedings have been initiated pertained to the original assessment and proceedings under Section 263 are time-barred with reference to original assessments. 3. Without prejudice to the forgoing grounds of appeal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT erred in setting aside the assessment ignoring the fact that all the issues regarding gross profit ratios were duly examined in the course of assessment proceedings.2. We set out the material facts first. The ass...
Starline Ispat and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Mum.)321
1. The short issue that we are required to adjudicate in this appeal is whether or not the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the action of the AO in declining set off of the speculation loss from share dealings against the dividend income earned from the shares held as stock-in-trade in the course of such share dealings. This grievance is raised by way of following well drafted grounds of appeal set out in the memorandum of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding that Explanation to Section 73 of the IT Act, 1961, is applicable to the appellant, even though its only business is dealing in shares and securities. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant is not covered by the exception provided in bracketed portion of Explanation to Section 73 of the IT Act, 1961, although gross total income consists mainly of 'income from other sources'. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that for the purposes of calculating gross total income, as provided in bracketed port...