Mumbai Court June 2007 Judgments

Jayantilal Deepchand Parmar Vs. Sou. Vaishali S. Farne and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ660

ORDERJ.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard Mr. Page, learned Counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent No. 1. Perused the impugned judgment.2. The applicant had filed the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent No. 1, who is the Medical Practitioner. It is admitted fact that she had taken loan of Rs. 3 lakh from the present applicant for construction of her hospital. According to the complainant, she had repaid the amount of Rs. 2 Lakh by two separate cheques and those cheques were encashed. However, 3rd cheque, which was issued on 16-8-2004 for balance amount of Rs. 1 lakh was presented to the bank for encashment but was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. He issued notice but in spite of that respondent did not make the payment. Thereafter, he lodged complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Plea of respondent No. 1 was that she had taken the loan at exorbitant interest at the rate of 5% per month and she was paying amount of Rs....

G.S. Financials, S.M. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All these four appeals involve a common issue which relates to enhancement of the penalty by the Commissioner. Central Excise & Customs in his revisional authority. Therefore the stay applications filed by the individual appellants are being disposed of by a common order.2. In all these appeals, the appellants have paid service tax levied along with interest and penalty imposed by the original adjudicating authority. It appears that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Service Tax), Nashik has reviewed the orders passed by the original authority and in exercise of his revisionary powers, the penalty has been enhanced on all the appellants. Hence these appeals.3. In view of the fact that the appellants have already deposited the service tax levied along with interest and the original penalty amount, they deserve for grant of waiver of pre deposit of the enhanced penalty amounts. Accordingly pre deposit is waived and stay is granted from its recovery pending disposal of the appeal...

Tulsabai Ramkrishna Telrandhe and ors. Vs. Champalal Khemchand Jain, D ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR578; 2007(5)BomCR373; 2007(5)MhLj886

Naik Vasanti A., J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the original defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the 11th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 163 of 1982 on 27-4-1983, as also the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 466 of 1983 on 7th October, 1986.2. The brief facts giving rise to this second appeal and to the controversy in question are stated as under:The respondent is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the agreement dated 22-3- 1979 was, in fact, an agreement of tenancy and the plaintiff was the lawful tenant of the defendant in respect of the suit premises. It is not in dispute that the defendant was the owner and the plaintiff was the tenant of the suit premises. The plaintiff was paying monthly rent of Rs. 100/- to the defendant. The defendant filed proceedings against the plaintiff under the provisions of C.P. & Berar Letting o...

Jang Bahadur Charitra Rai Vs. Durjore Ardeshir Mistry and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR456; 2007(5)BomCR767; 2007(6)MhLj321

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Plaintiff undertakes to remove office objections within two weeks from today. That undertaking is accepted.2. The counsel appearing for the contesting defendants state that the defendants have no intention to file any further affidavit. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4, though served, have not chosen to appear before the Court or file any reply. The counsel for the plaintiff states, on instructions, that during the hearing of this Motion yesterday, the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were personally present in Court. Be that as it may, the Motion is proceeded for final hearing by consent of the counsel for the plaintiff and the contesting defendants who have made appearance through Advocates.3. The plaintiff has pressed interim relief in this Motion only in terms of prayer Clause (a) which reads thus:(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a temporary order of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents...

Dhirajlal Chhotalal Parekh and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]298ITR27(Bom)

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated February 24,1993, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax, Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to respondent No. 1 for grant of 'No Objection Certificate' in respect of the transaction in question, and for a further direction that respondent No. 1 should determine the consideration payable by the Government including the reduced amount of Rs. 1,04,905 and Rs. 13,75,000 being the consideration for the transfer of furniture, fittings and fixtures. The petitioners have further prayed that the Central Government be directed to make good the loss caused to the petitioners and pay the amount with interest. It is further prayed by the petitioners for an injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding further by way of taking possession of the said property, in pursuance of the impugned order.2. T...

Kishor Tulsidas Choksi and ors. (Also Known as Kishorchandra Tulsidas ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Bom)414; [2008]298ITR228(Bom)

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated February 18, 1993, passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to respondent No. 1 for grant of 'no objection certificate' under Section 269UL(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners have further prayed that the Central Government be directed to make good the loss caused to the petitioners and to pay the amount with interest. The petitioners have also prayed for an injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding further by way of taking possession of the property, in pursuance of the impugned order.2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 4 is the wife of petitioner No. 3, petitioner No. 1 is true brother of petitioner No. 4 and petitioner No. 2 is a minor son of the brother of petitioner No. 4. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referre...

Kedar Jagannath Acharya Vs. MohsIn YasIn Momin

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)3MLJ731

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard Mr. G. H. Keluskar the learned Counsel for the applicant. The applicant, who is original complainant, seeks leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. To State in brief, it is the case of the petitioner that he had sold synthetic yarn to the respondent and for payment of the dues, the respondent had issued a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the petitioner on 3-1-1999. The cheque was presented to Nagarik Co-operative Bank firstly on 9th June, 1999 but it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It was presented on 15th June, 1999 again and was dishonoured with similar remarks. Thereafter he presented the cheque third time on 2nd July, 1999 and the cheque was dishonoured again. On 16-7-1999 the complainant issued a notice to the respondent, which was received by him on 21-7-1999. In spite of that he did not make the payment and, therefore, on 21-8-1999 a complaint ...

Hotel Horizon (P.) Ltd. Vs. Manish Sharma

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]85SCL181(Bom)

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This appeal arises from the order dated 2-12-1998 passed in Company Petition No. 398 of 1996. By the impugned order the petition filed by the respondent for winding up of the appellant company has been admitted.2. After issuance of the statutory notice by the respondent herein, neither any reply was sent by the appellant company, nor sufficient cause was shown for not proceeding against the appellant for winding up.3. The learned Company Judge after hearing the parties, on perusal of the record and after taking note of the three grounds on which the petition was objected by the appellant viz., that the goods supplied were of substandard quality, there was bona fide dispute regarding the amount to be paid as the respondent had charged higher rates, and thirdly that the claim was barred by limitation during the pendency of the petition, held that the appellant had neither produced any evidence nor any material in support of their claim that the goods supplied we...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Godrej Industries Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) mainly on two grounds which are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the F Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act while computing the book profit and to calculate the said deduction on the basis of the book profit as defined in the Explanation below Section 115JA(2) although the assessing officer had correctly disallowed the said deduction from the book profit since income computed under the normal provisions of the said Act was a negative Figure. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under Section 80-IA while computing the book profit for the purpose of Section 115JA of the said Act although the assessing officer was right in not g...

Shri Vasant Bhaskar Parulkar and ors. Vs. Shri Mahesh Shivram Rege

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR446; 2007(4)BomCR39; 2007(5)MhLj674

D.G. Karnik, J1. This appeal by the original plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and order dated September 10, 1998 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing appellants'suit No. 1773 of 1987 with costs.2. Appellants are the trustees of Balmohan Vidyamandir Trust ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust'), a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1948. They filed a suit against the respondent for possession of a flat (hereinafter referred to as the suit flat) situated on the rear side of the first floor of the building at 42, Kaleskar Road, Shivaji Park, Mumbai 28 (hereinafter referred to as the suit building). By the impugned judgment the suit was dismissed. 3. The case of the appellants plaintiffs is that Mr. Shivram Dattatraya Rege (for short 'Shivram') was the founder and managing trustee of the Trust. In the year 1940 Shivram took on lease the suit flat along with two flats on the ground floor of the suit building on monthly rent of Rs.155/f...