Mumbai Court June 2007 Judgments

J.K.D. Popat and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is listed for admission for the reason that the amount involved in this case is Rs. 22995/- (Rupees twenty two thousand nine hundred ninety five only).2. Heard the Ld. SDR and perused the records. It is seen from the record that the issue involved in this case is regarding the penalty imposed on the; appellant under the provision of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 which is applicable to Service Tax. There is no threshold limit for hearing of the appeal in the cases of Service Tax.Accordingly, the appeal is admitted. Registry is directed to list the stay application in its due course....

Ultra Entertainment Solutions Vs. Ito (Tds)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29-12-2005 of Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai for assessment year 2003-04.2. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record.3. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that payment for shared use of computer network for sale of Online Lottery Tickets was in the nature of "Technical Services", hence, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee is also aggrieved by the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in holding the assessee in default under Section 201 and directing the Assessing Of f icer to levy interest under Section 201 (1 A) of the Act even when the computer network provider had no taxable income, hence, no loss to revenue on account of tax or interest.4. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of selling of onli...

Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals by the assessee-company are against the separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXI, Mumbai, both dated 28-3-2005 relating to assessment year 1997-98 against order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. Both these appeals relating to the same assessee were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee has raised same grounds in both the appeals, which are asunder: 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in not granting interest under Section 244A on the amount of refund of tax deducted under Section 195 to the appellant company. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) further erred in rejecting the appellant's contention that payment of tax in consequence of an order passed under Section 195(2) of the Act is also payment made under Section156 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in applying the case laws which ha...

Mr. Ranshi L. Shah Vs. Premji Devji Shah and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR194; 2007(5)BomCR741; 2007(4)MhLj293

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. Only the interpretation of the declaration of Trust dated 4th August, 1982 is the subject matter of this Appeal as was of the proceedings before the learned Judge whose Judgment dated 10/11 th July, 2003 is challenged. Both the Advocates agree that the Appeal be disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. There are three distinct aspects which call for interpretation. (1) Whether the appointment of Trustee is required to be done by all the surviving and continuing Trustees acting together. (2) Whether the notice of the meeting to be held for appointment of Trustees is mandatorily required to be of 4 clear days. 3. Appointment of Trustees:Clauses 19, 21 and 23 of the Trust Deed - Under Clause 19 at any meeting of the Trustee the votes of persons present and entitled to vote or votes of a majority of those present and voting would be empowered to decide any question or matter proposed at such meeting. 4. Under Clause 21 if the Trustees are reduced to less than 5 in n...

Yeshwant Rambhau Chondhe Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs Tanaji ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR554; 2007(5)BomCR335

R.M. Savant, J. 1. Rule. By consent of parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises an issue as to whether the petitioners herein, who are the original plaintiffs should be allowed to lead secondary evidence. The said issue arises in the context of the decision of the Trial Court who refused to exhibit the certified copies of the registered documents by rejecting the application of the petitioners-plaintiffs marked as Exhibit-1 vide the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2004.3. The factual matrix involved in the present petition is stated thus:a. The petitioners-plaintiffs and the respondents 18 to 25 herein have filed R.C.S. No. 1075 of 1996 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune claiming specific performance of the Agreements for sale dated 30th July, 1956 and 18th July, 1957 against the respondents 1 to 17 herein.b. The suit property is survey No. 12 and survey No. 171/4 admeasuring about 9 acr...

Packing Paper Products Vs. Nicaf Private Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR791; 2008(2)BomCR879; 2007(4)MhLj34

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Appellant has challenged the judgment dated 22nd December, 2006 of the Bombay City Civil Court granting an injunction to the Respondents against the Appellants and restraining the Appellants from constructing a compound wall in a part of the suit premises, putting up any permanent or temporary structure in the compulsory open space and using a particular compulsory open space which has to be left open to the skies under the Development Control Rules (DC Rules). There is no dispute between the parties in this Suit about any construction in the compulsory open space, other than the compound wall. There is also no dispute between the parties with regard to the access road, which is meant only for ingress and egress and is to be left open to the sky. 2. The Appellant contends that he is the tenant of the Respondent. He has filed a declaratory suit in the Bombay Small Causes Court (Rent Court) against the Respondent in 1985. The Respondent has filed a suit for evictio...

Ravindra S/O Bisen Goswami and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR509; 2007(6)MhLj16

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are legal heirs/dependents of ex-employees of the respondent No. 2-Corporation of City of Nagpur, are seeking writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to grant them employment on compassionate basis and to set aside the communications/orders dated 23-8-2002 and 25-8-2002. The respondent No. 1 before us is the State of Maharashtra. The mother of the petitioner No. 1 by name Smt. Sugandha Goswami was working as Mazdoor (Labour) in Garden Department and on 1-7-1995, in an accident her right leg was injured and it is stated that she was bedridden for about two years and thereafter she took retirement with effect from 9-7-1998 which came to be granted by an order dated 29-6-1998. Similarly, Shri Ramsahay Shukla, the father of the petitioner No. 2 was working as Meter Reader in Water Works Department and it is alleged that because of his ailment and hyper tension, he became incap...

Rashmi Ramesh Pahudkar Vs. Asha Vasantkumar Anchan and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)MhLj763

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner contested the elections against a seat reserved for Other Backward Classes of Citizens (Women), being Ward No. 114 of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Pursuant to the notification issued for holding elections in December, 2006 the elections were held on 1st February, 2007 and the election results were declared on 2nd February, 2007.Before contesting the elections the petitioner applied for caste certificate as she claimed as belonging to Shetty community which according to the petitioner is notified as O.B.C. in the Notification published by the Maharashtra State Government dated 20th May, 2006. In terms of the said Notification at Serial No. 171 of O.B.C. list the entry was shown, as 'Kurhin, Shetty'. It is the case of the petitioner, therefore, that as per the said Notification Kurhin and Shetty are shown as two distinct and separate castes amongst the Other Backward Classes of Citizens. The petitioner was issued ...

Govindbhai Dayal Mange Vs. Vijaykumar Balkishan Agarwal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR805; 2007(6)BomCR628; 2007(5)MhLj752

Karnik D.G., J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-6-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's Notice of Motion No. 2023 of 1997, taken out by for setting aside the exparte decree dated 20-7-1995.2. The respondent No. 1 (for short, the respondent) filed a suit, bearing Summary Suit No. 443 of 1995, against the appellant for recovery of loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with interest, totally amounting to Rs. 1,39,496/-. The respondent's case was that a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- dated 25-11-1991 issued by the appellant towards repayment was dishonoured. The respondent had thereafter filed a criminal prosecution against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In the said prosecution, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three more months. The order further d...

Suman Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)DMC449

K.J. Rohee, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1993 is preferred by accused No. 3 Suman w/o Pralhad Ghodke challenging her conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentences thereunder passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1991 on 28.6.1993 whereas the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 1993 challenging the acquittal of accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. However, the appeal is admitted against the acquittal of accused No. 1 Vijay s/o. Pralhad Ghodke only.2. P.W. 1 Shrirang s/o Yashwant Raut and P.W. 2 Sau. Vimal w/o. Shrirang Raut, resident of Bhusawal had two daughters and a son. P.W. 3 Sau. Nirmala w/o Subhash Madne is their elder daughter and Anita was their younger daughter. Anita was married to accused No. 1 Vijay s/o. Pralhad Ghodke r/o Khamgaon on 14.2.1990. After their marriage, Anita went to cohabit with her husband at Khamgaon. Accused No. 3 Suman is the mother-in-law, accuse...