Mumbai Court April 2007 Judgments

ito Vs. Smt. Anjali Mehra

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Both these appeals are by the revenue against the separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals)-XVI, Mumbai, dated 20-6-2003 and 23-6-2003 relating to assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively against the order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both the appeals relating to the same assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of A convenience.2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in assessment year 1997-98: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing to grant exemption under Section 54F of Rs. 1,52,18,000 against capital gain even though the assessee was in possession of property, income form which was chargeable to tax as 'Income from house property' on the date of transfer of the original asset.3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in assessment year 1998-99: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of ...

Carona Limited, a Company registered under the provisions of the Compa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR4; 2007(4)BomCR265; (2007)109BOMLR1101; 2007(4)MhLj551

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. An Arbitration Petition in which the Appellant sought relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been dismissed by Mr. Justice D.K. Deshmukh on the ground that since the dispute between the parties arises out of an agreement of leave and licence, the Presidency Small Causes Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The Learned Single Judge has, in taking this view, relied upon his judgment dated 22nd August 2005 in Siemens Ltd. v. Captech Online Pvt. Ltd. Arbitration Petition No. 99 of 2004.2. The Appellant in the Arbitration Petition, out of which these proceedings arise, sought the following reliefs:-(i) A direction to the Respondent to hand over possession of the premises situated on the Second Floor of a building known as Khatau House, Plot No. 410/411, New Udyog Mandir Compound, Mogul Lane, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016;(ii) In the alternative, appointment ...

Shri Laxman Ladu Raut and Shri Mangaldas K. Gawas, Chairman Vs. Union ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR642; 2007(4)BomCR613; (2007)109BOMLR1005; 2007(1)GLR518

N.A. Britto, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners assail the letter/communication dated 20-12-2005 issued by the Director(Co-operation) with the approval of the Central Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, by which it has been clarified that the term of Office of the present Board of Directors(Respondent Nos.5 to 20) will be 5 years from the date of election(25-1-2003). 2. The petitioners have assailed the said letter essentially on the ground that it is grossly illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized since the Certificate of Registration dated 1-3-2004 had fixed the tenure of the present Board of Directors to 3 years and the tenure of 5 years was for the Board of Directors to be elected in future. The petitioners have therefore sought, interalia, for a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order and direction to quash and set aside the said clarification contained in the said letter dat...

Sau. Dropadabai W/O Murlidhar thete and Vs. the State of Maharashtra T ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR2; 2007(4)BomCR249; 2007(4)MhLj712

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Rule in both the Petitions. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The facts in both the Writ Petitions are common and raise a common question and are therefore disposed of by this common judgment and order. For convenience we will refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 1677 of 2007.3. The petitioner has sought a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to hold fresh polling in the respective constituencies by setting aside the election results published on 12.3.2007. 4. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the State Election Commissioner, the District Collector and the Returning Officer for elections to Zilla Parishad respectively. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are the successful candidates.5. As per the election programme the polling was held on 11.3.2007 and the counting was held on 12.3.2007. 6. The petitioners' grievance is that as per the chart prepared by the Returning Officer in respect of the Zilla Parishad constituency an aggregate 11443 votes were cas...

Mukunda Bhivsam Mahajan Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its Depar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR143; 2007(4)BomCR726; 2007(4)MhLj744

R.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule. By consent, of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith.2. This petition seeks to quash and set aside a Government Resolution dated 8.11.2006 and for directions upholding a resolution dated 27.6.2006 passed by the General Body of the Respondent No. 2 Pune Municipal Corporation. Further direction is also sought against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Dy. Project Officer in the Urban Development Department of the respondent No. 2 Corporation.3. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) By a newspaper advertisement dated 7.4.2005 the Pune Municipal Corporation sought applications for appointment to 33 different categories of posts in the Pune Municipal Corporation on conditions as mentioned in the advertisement. In respect of the post of Dy. Project Officer, several applications including the application of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 were received by the Pune Municipal Corporation.b) The petitioner who had app...

Gopal L. Raheja of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant and Vs. Vijay B. Raheja o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR288

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by a Learned Single Judge on 14th March 2005 while disposing of a Motion for interim relief in the suit. The Plaintiffs are in appeal. The reliefs claimed: 2. The suit out of which these proceedings arise, came to be instituted in order to seek the following reliefs:(i) A declaration that Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and/or 6 to 9 hold 50% of the shares and 50% of the Directorships of the Fifth Defendant-Company through which the First and the Second Defendants have acquired the property which forms the subject matter of the suit, in trust for and for the benefit of the Plaintiffs; (ii) A decree against the Defendants to transfer 50% of the issued share capital of the Fifth Defendant to the Plaintiffs and to appoint half the Directors of the Company from amongst the Plaintiffs and their nominees against payment of a half of the price of the property; (iii) An injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating or developing the ...

Union of India (Uoi), Represented Through Chief Engineer Vs. Arctic In ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR524(Bom); 2007(6)BomCR384; 2007(4)MhLj174

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioners have challenged award dated 29/03/2004 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act-1996 (for short,' Arbitration Act.) 2. A contract was executed by and between the parties in respect of replacement of BER A/C plant at NAD Karanja based on the tender dated 27/01/1996. The respondents' tender was accepted on 09/04/1996. The amount of contract was Rs. 86,13,066/- (Rupees Eighty six lacs thirteen thousand sixty six only). The period of completion was 15 months. The date of commencement/ completion as per the work order was 24/04/1996 to 23/07/1997. The work was actually completed, as contended by the respondents, on 11/08/1999/ 01/10/1999. The claimant/respondents submitted final bill on 17/07/2002 but returned by the petitioners on 31/07/2002. Thus, as dispute arose a sole arbitrator was appointed by letter dated 26/03/2003, in view of terms and condition 70 of IAFW-2249 being part of the contract between the parties. The date of completi...

Kalabai Pramod Raut Vs. Selection Committee, Anganwadi Sewika and Help ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR77; 2008(1)BomCR925; 2007(4)MhLj349

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Parties were put to notice for final disposal. After notice by this Court, contesting respondents have filed their respective affidavits. In view of this, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is called for final disposal by consent.2. Heard.3. This is a simple case which proceeds on certain admitted facts, namely:(a) The selection process is based on allotment of marks on the basis of pre-decided norms, such as educational qualification, experience, place of residence, caste or category, etc. These marks are 80 in number, and are to be objectively allotted.(b) Twenty marks have been reserved for viva voce, where in the personal interview, where marks would be allotted by each member or the Selection Panel, and their average would be the quantum.(c) Consolidated sheet of allotment of marks shows over-writing suggesting that in the educational qualification column, initially, respondent No. 4 was allotted 15 marks, and 15 marks for her falling in the SC/ST categor...

Amresh S/O Suresh Jaiswal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR812; 2007(4)MhLj488

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Rule. By consent made returnable forthwith.2. Petitioner, who runs a wine shop in the name and style 'Samrat Liquors Shop' under a valid licence for selling liquor was ordered by Senior Inspector of Police, Police Station, Ajani, Nagpur on 3-2-2007, not to open his shop until further orders. Senior Police Inspector informed the petitioner that the petitioner was attempting to open a shop at a place which was surrounded by statue of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, a charitable dispensary and a playground. The notice recites that opening of a liquor shop at that place has created discontent among the citizens which was likely to escalate into agitation. Senior Police Inspector, therefore, ordered under Section 142 of the Bombay Prohibition Act that petitioner should not open his shop until further orders.3. The petitioner contends that after complying with the stringent requirement for obtaining licence to run a liquor shop the petitioner has been granted licence to run the sho...

Sanjay D. Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR126; 2007(6)BomCR381; 2007(4)MhLj888

R.M. Savant, J.1. Rule. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. The Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a dispute in respect of various issues relating to elections of the Managing Committee of respondent No. 3 - The Hanuman Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. (hereinafter refereed to for the brevity sake as 'the said Society'). The issues raised by the petitioners are inter-alia the appointment of respondent No. 4 as an Election Officer fixing the date as 1-1-2007 for being eligible to vote and transferring 64 members from borrower constituency to non-borrower constituency. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.P. Kadam however at the threshold submitted that he is not pressing the same issues and will adopt appropriate remedies available to the petitioner in law for redressal of his grievances in respect of the said issues. Mr. Kadam submitted that the only issue that he desires to agitate in this Petition...