Mumbai Court May 2007 Judgments

Nasir HusaIn Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Saregama India Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR192

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The present petition which is under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short Arbitration Act).2. Based on the agreement dated 8th May, 2006 for assignment and exploitation of copy rights and sound recording and underlying works, the petitioner has sought an interim order upon initiation hearing and final disposal of the arbitration proceedings and making of the award and/or implementation thereof, respondent No. 1 be ordered to disclose within 15days on affidavit complete details of the royalties due to the petitioners and deposit in Court all royalties payable to the petitioners under the Assignment Deed including those dues under Clauses 6(a) and 6(J) of the Assignment Deed. The petitioners have not pressed prayer Clauses (a) and (b). Therefore, made restricted submissions by the counsel for the parties.3. Respondent No. 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office a...

Sanjay Bathija Vs. Prashant Properties and Investment (P.) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007]141CompCas216(Bom); (2008)2CompLJ229(Bom); [2007]78SCL359(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Appellant is a shareholder with a holding of 170 shares in the issued and subscribed capital of the First Respondent. At the material time, the Third Respondent was also a shareholder with a holding of 10 shares. On 7-12-2001, the Directors of the First Respondent permitted the transfer of (i) 300 equity shares from the account of one Madan Mohan Bathija; (ii) 10 equity shares from the account of Madan Mohan Bathija HUF; (iii) 10 equity shares from the account of the Fourth Respondent to the Third Respondent. Accordingly, the Third Respondent held 330 shares in the issued and subscribed share capital of the company. On the same day, the Directors of the First Respondent permitted the issue and allotment of 4490 equity shares of the First Respondent to the Second Respondent. There is no dispute about the factual position that the Second Respondent was not a shareholder of the First Respondent prior to the aforesaid issue.2. In September 2003, the Second Respon...

Sow. Swati SachIn Mahajan (Pagare) Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)DMC79

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondent.3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2nd February 2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Rahuri, in Criminal Application No. 52/2007, thereby calling for the report under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from Police Station, Rahuri, the applicant has approached this Court by way of present application.4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the application are as under:The applicant was married with original accused No. 1 Sachin on 31st May 1998. It is the contention of the applicant that while the marriage of the applicant with original accused No. 1 Sachin was in subsistence, accused No. 1 performed the second marriage with accused No. 2, Sarika. The applicant, therefore, filed complaint being Criminal Application No. 52/2007 in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Rahuri, und...

The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Fire and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom59

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Plaintiff which is a Public Limited Company, registered under the Companies' Act, 1913, owns and runs three Divisions known as (i) Century Rayon Division, (ii) Century Rayon Tyrecord Division and (iii) Century Chemicals. All the three Divisions are situated at Murbad Road, Kalyan. The Defendants are companies which carry on General Insurance business. Between the period 1st January 1977 and 1st January 1978, the Plaintiff obtained seven Insurance Policies from the Defendants, namely:a) Policy No. 1110/0/0/F/2126 (inter alia covering the building, machinery and accessories of the Rayon division); b) Policy No. 1110/0/0/F/2128 (inter alia covering the stock and stock-in-process of the Rayon division; c) Policy No. 1110/0/0/F/2129 (inter alia covering the building, machinery and accessories of the Tyrecord division; d) Policy No. 1110/0/0/F/2131 (inter alia covering the stock and stock-in-process of the Tyrecord division; e) Policy No. 1110/0/0/F/2132 (inter ali...

Smt. Sushma Ajay Singh and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3647

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Shrivstava, learned Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, and Mrs. Khade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.2. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, submitted that petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the owners of plot No. 64 situated at Mount Road Extension, Nagpur. In the said premises, husband of petitioner No. 3 late Shri Vimal Chandra Grover established a hotel, which is known as 'Hotel Upvan'. Shri Vimal Chandra Grover expired on 25-10-2004. At that time, petitioner No. 4 was residing in U.S.A. Hence, petitioner No. 3 decided to permit petitioner No. 1 to run the said hotel. The petitioner No. 2 is the husband of petitioner No. 1, who helped petitioner No. 1 in running the hotel business.3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar further submitted that in the year 2007, a dispute arose betwe...

Homa Engineering Works Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)11STJ28CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. Vide impugned order, the authorities below have confirmed service tax amounting to Rs. 68,50,147/- against the appellant and penalty of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- under Section 78 along with personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- stand imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1944 and penalty of Rs. 200/- per day, under Section 76 during which they failed to pay service tax. In addition, interest in respect of confirmed demand has been held to be payable.2. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the business of repairing, chipping, cleaning and painting of the vessels of Coast Guard, Naval Dock and ONGC at Mazagaon Docks Ltd. During the period 16.07.2001 to 30.09.2003, the appellants did such job under contract with their customers for a value of Rs. 12.93 crores approximately.They were issued a show cause notice dt.23.1.2004 alleging that the said services undertaken by the appellants are "Port Services" which are liable to service tax. The appellants took a categorical stand b...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Dsp Merrill Lynch Investment

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), for the assessment year 1998-99,on the following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 20,15,85,238 made by way of capital expenditure on the initial issue expenditure on the mutual funds. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,12,450 by way of capital expenditure on the professional and legal charges.2. The first issue is regarding disallowance of Rs. 20,15,85,238 in respect of initial issue expenses, which was deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee-company was registered as an Asset Management Company under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996. The assessee had been appointed as an Asset Management Company for the mutual funds laun...

Dr. Pramod Anantrao Pathre Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Se ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR543; (2007)109BOMLR962

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. I have had the benefit of reading my learned Brothers judgment but regret my inability to agree with the same. The petitions raise common questions of law arising from similar facts and are, therefore, disposed of by a common judgment and order.2. The question that falls for consideration is whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh : (1993)IILLJ937SC , in so far as it held that an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee but, must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee has been overruled by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secy., State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi : (2006)IILLJ722SC . I have answered the question in the negative. In my view, this question was not considered by the Constitution Bench in Umadevis case.3. For convenience, I will refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 6460/2006. 4. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 ar...

Shri Satish Dattatray Nadgauda Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR184; 2007(3)BomCR791; (2007)109BOMLR1089; 2007(4)MhLj475

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court to challenge the legality and propriety of G.R. dated 29.7.2006 and G.R. dated 25.11.2005 as described in prayer Clause (b) and for a further mandamus to withdraw the said G.Rs. The G.Rs pertain to the revised criteria for regularising posts other than teachers in the private partial/whole time granted Secondary, Higher Secondary Schools, Classes of Higher Secondary/Junior Colleges, Military schools in the State of Maharashtra. The G.R. of 29th July, 2006 is the revised criteria for similar posts. As the matter pertained to creation of post under the provisions of MEPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder, we had issued notice to the State Government as to why considering Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the English translations thereof were not available, as prima facie the said G.Rs were an exercise in subordinate legislation. Under Article 348(1)(b), the authoritative text of all Bills, ame...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Dilip Raghunath Chavan

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)DMC408

S.R. Sathe, J.1. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No. 50 of 1988 whereby the accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302, 307 and 325 of I.P.C. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: Prosecution witness No. 6 Sakharam Ganpat Jadhav was residing at village Tural alongwith his wife Savitri and their children, including his married daughter Sulochana the wife of the present accused Dilip Raghunath Chavan. Not only that, but even accused had come to their house a day prior to the date of incident. On that day he had suggested that he would take his wife Sulochana to Sakharappa. However, the prosecution witness No. 6 Sakharam had suggested that first he (accused) should seek some job and secure accommodation for residence and then take Sulochana with him.3. On the day of incident i.e. on 2.5.1988 Sakharam returned home in the evening. When he got down...