Mumbai Court June 2007 Judgments

N. Chandra Chems Vs. Varma Mukherji Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR606; 2007(5)MhLj722

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent though served. Perused the records.2. The present appeal arises from order dated 5th August, 1989 passed in Chamber Summons No. 1058 of 1998 in Summary Suit No. 889 of 1997. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has rejected the Chamber Summons whereby the appellant had sought a direction to the respondent in terms of Order 21, Rule 41(2) of Civil Procedure Code. The application of the appellant in that regard has been dismissed holding that the same was premature as there had been no application under Order 21, Rule 11(2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.3. The learned Advocate for the appellant placing reliance in the decision of this Court in (United Phosphorous Ltd. v. A.K. Kanoria) reported in : AIR2003Bom97 submitted that the provisions of law comprised in the Civil Procedure Code nowhere require that for the purpose of seeking information regarding the properties of the j...

Khazana Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Asst. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)301ITR312(Mum.)

1. The first issue arising in this appeal relates to the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act').2. Briefly stated the facts are, that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 27-11-1998, declaring nil income. The said return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, vide intimation dated 9-9-1999 accepting the return. Subsequently, on perusal of the records, it was noticed that the company was dealing in purchase and sale of shares /debentures, etc., and had a loss of Rs. 1,12,88,130 on the sale of such shares/debentures, the assessee had also declared income from dividend and interest on debentures, etc., at Rs. 8,54,250 which was adjusted against the loss from share trading. On these facts, the assessing officer was of the view that income to the extent of Rs. 8,54,250 had escaped assessment as per the provisions of Section 147 of the Act inasmuch as the loss in shares was deemed to be spe...

Pawan Hans Helicopter Ltd., Formerly Known as Pawan Hans Pvt. Ltd., a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR482; 2007(3)ARBLR254(Bom); 2007(4)BomCR26; (2007)109BOMLR1163; (2007)4BOMLR26; 2007(6)MhLj255

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Pursuant to the allotment of work for construction of compound wall and for construction of a bridge over a nullah to the respondents, respective work contracts were entered into between the parties. The work in both the cases was required to be completed within a specified time. However, since it could not be completed within the said period, the time for completion of the work was extended. Consequent to the dispute arising between the parties, same was referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreements. The learned arbitrator had held that the respondents would be entitled to claim 15% escalation charges as against the 30% escalation charges claimed by the respondents for the period beyond the expiry of the contractual period. As the appellants herein were not satisfied with the awards, ...

Urmi Juvekar Chiang Vs. Global Broadcast News Limited, a Company Incor ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR617; 2008(2)BomCR400; (2007)109BOMLR981; LC2007(2)223; 2008(36)PTC377(Bom)

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for both the sides at length. Perused all the relevant documents and pleadings on record.2. This order will dispose of prayer for ad-interim relief claimed by the Plaintiff during the pendency of the Motion.3. The Plaintiff claims to be a reputed script-writer having scripted various films and various television serials. She also claims to have authored and/or directed and/or produced various documentary films. In substance, the grievance of the Plaintiff against the Defendants, on the basis of which, interim relief is claimed against them is on two grounds(a) Breach of Confidentiality by the Defendants.(b) Infringement of copyright of the Plaintiff.Both these causes are in relation to reproduction and adaptation in the format of the proposed television programme created by the Plaintiff titled 'Work in Progress', by the Defendants by making the television programme by title 'Summer Showdown' and proposing to broadcast the same on the CNN-IBN te...

Renuka D/O Sitaram Dhoke Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR392; 2007(5)MhLj182

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition is directed against petitioner's termination ordered by respondents on 13th May,1992.2. The petitioner was appointed as Kindergarten Worker (Anganwadi Karyakarti) by an order dated 13-9-1982 on honorarium of Rs. 125/- per month. She was working as such at village Murzari Tahsil and District Yavatmal. On 21-3-1992, a notice was issued to her to show cause as to why action should not be taken against her for several delinquencies listed in the notice. The petitioner replied this notice on 30th March, 1992. However, by the impugned order dated 13th May, 1992 the petitioner was discharged from the post of honorary Kindergarten Worker.3. The petitioner assails this order on the ground that the order was mala fide, inasmuch as it was contrived by the Police Patil to have the petitioner discharged to make room for Police Patil's wife, for being appointed as Kindergarten Worker. The petitioner claims that she had discharged her duties properly and that there was...

Sanjay Vaijnath Deshpande Vs. Rajesh Anandrao Deshpande

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR399; 2007(6)MhLj845

P.V. Kakade, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both parties.2. The present petition arises out of an order dated 24-4-2006 passed by the C.J., S.D., Nanded in Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 2006, which is sought to be quashed and it is further requested that the counter-claim be rejected as untenable under the law.3. The petitioner-original plaintiff preferred R.C.S. No. 629 of 2005 for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing and disturbing the possession and construction of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property located at Vazirabad, Nanded. The defendant filed written statement and counter-claim pertaining to the property valued at Rs. 1,40,000/-. The defendant prayed for declaration of title and possession. The respondent-defendant filed an application (Exh.21) praying that the suit be transferred to the C.J., S.D. because the counterclaim pertains to the property valued at Rs. 1,40,000/-, which is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of C.J., J.D. Therefore, the ...

Sheel Arora Vs. Madan Mohan Bajaj and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR633; 2007(5)MhLj848

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. This appeal arises from the order dated 13th October, 1999 passed in Notice of Motion 1136 of 1998 in Suit No. 937 of 1998. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has made the Notice of Motion absolute, thereby has appointed a Receiver for the suit premises.2. The respondent No. 1 has filed Civil Suit claiming declaration that the plaintiff and the appellant herein, who is the defendant No. 1 in the suit are the owners in respect of shares bearing Nos. 306 to 310 and of the flat No. 3 on the second floor, and also of garage No. 17 on the ground floor of the building known as 'Skyscraper Building - B block, situate at Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai, and consequently for the partition of the suit property. Pending the hearing and disposal of the suit, the plaintiff took out the Notice of Motion, seeking an order of appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the suit property and also seeking relief of temporary injunction. By the impugned order, the lear...

Shri Rakesh Rao Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 85 days in filing the appeal. The Commissioner Central Excise and Customs has passed the Revision Order dated 31.7.2006 and enhanced the penalty amount which has been assailed in the present appeal. The applicants submits that copy of the order has been received by one of the staff member who is ignorant of the Government documents and did not handover to the concerned staff to enable them to file an appeal in time. Due to negligence of that clerk, the delay has been occurred. It is also submitted that the delay is not deliberate and intentional one but due to negligence of their own staff. They also submit that the impugned order is exfacie perverse, without the authority of law and without jurisdiction and they have prima facie case to succeed in the appeal.2. After hearing both sides it is felt expedient that this is a fit case to condone the delay and to provide an opportunity to the applicant to pursue their appeal. Accordingl...

The Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) Vs. Jupiter Exports and (3) ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR757; (2007)109BOMLR1138; 2007(119)ECC395; 2007LC395(Bombay)

Vijay C. Daga, J.1. These are two proceedings, one is Customs Application under Section 130(A) of the Customs a1962, ('the Act' for short) at the instance of the Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) ('the Revenue' for short) to seek reference for the opinion of this Court, inter-alia, for deciding three questions of law referred to in the paras appearing hereinafter; another is a Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being Writ Petition No. 794/2002, at the instance of the respondents in the application, i.e. M/s. Jupiter Exports, (the petitioner) seeking writ of mandamus directions against the Commissioner of Customs to implement the order passed by the Customs Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. ('the 'Tribunal' for short)FACTS:2. The facts involved in both the proceedings are common. The petitioner is engaged in the business of export of fabrics and allied products.3. The Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) issued a show cause notice alleging gro...

Bank of Maharashtra, a Body Corporate Constituted Under the Banking Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR407; 2007(4)BomCR9

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Order will dispose of prayer for interim relief as pressed in the Notice of Motion filed by the Plaintiffs during the pendency of the Suit. The subject Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs, essentially for declaration and injunction on the claim founded on Section 53 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Plaintiff Bank is one of the creditor of the Defendant No. 1 Company. According to the Plaintiffs, they had filed Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,48,39,822/-(Rupees Four Crores Forty-eight Lakhs Thirty-nine Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-two Only) in this Court against the Defendant No. 1 and Ors. being Suit No. 4880 of 1998. After the coming into force of the Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and establishment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal ('D.R.T.'), Mumbai in or about October 1999, the said Suit stood transferred to D.R.T.-II, Mumbai and was renumbered as original Application No....