Mumbai Court July 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh Through Its President Vs. Empress Mills, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR6; 2007(5)BomCR436; 2007(5)MhLj701
A.H. Joshi, J.1. The appellant in both the Appeals is the original applicant who had filed application under Section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, claiming a declaration that the employer, as it then was, namely, Central India Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company Limited has effected certain illegal change. 2. During pendency of the said BIR Application, the Textile Unit was taken over by the State, under the provisions of the Central India Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company Limited, Empress Mills Nagpur (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). During pendency of application, present Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') filed application for intervention on 25.10.1991.3. In the application dated 25.10.991, the applicant - Corporation (present Respondent No. 1) averred as follows:2. That, under the provisions of Nationalization act, the Commissioner of Payments has been appo...
Rekha Umesh Shetty Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ138
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of one Umesh Shetty ('detenu' for convenience), who has been detained by the 2nd respondent, Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('COFEPOSA Act' for short), with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling goods. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of detention.2. The order of detention was served on the detenu when he was in judicial custody. The grounds of detention indicate that the material placed before the detaining authority disclosed that two consignments imported by the detenu were seized by the DRI Officers on 21/2/06. The relevant bills of entry showed the goods contained in the consignments as plastic parts of toys. However, they contained 4 lakh pieces of Analog Watch Movements valued at Rs. 68 lakhs. It was apparent, therefore, that the goods were mis...
Ramdas S/O Ganpatrao Satpute Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR565; [2007(115)FLR772]
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present petition the petitioner has challenged the award dated 11/10/1994 made by the Labour Court, Chandrapur in Reference (I.D.A.) Case No. 8 of 1990 answering the same in negative i.e. against the petitioner-employee and thus rejected his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.FACTS:2. The petitioner was working with the respondent-industry since 1968 as Machine boy. He was charge sheeted by the respondent-employer with a sole charge that in the night of 07/01/1982 he had thrown three packets of gas welding rods and three pieces of brass bush weighing about 4.00 kg. from the boundary wall of the Mill on the public road and then after finishing his duty at about 5.45 a.m. when he was collecting said articles in a bag, he was caught red handed by the watchmen who were on surveillance on him. He was then brought towards factory gate where the Security Officer recorded his statement of admission of the theft committed by him. The charge sheet...
Rameshwar S/O Shankarlalji Mantri Vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR274; 2007(5)BomCR665
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present petition the petitioner has challenged the orders made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mehkar who ordered seizure and auction of 40 babool wooden logs belonging to the petitioner and confirmed by the Additional Collector, Buldana as well as the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in appeals.FACTS:2. The petitioner is owner of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 158 area 4.00 H.R. at mouza Sultanpur, tahsil Lonar, district Buldana. The petitioner engaged contractor Madangawali for felling 40 babool trees standing in his field and for sale thereof at Rs. 34,000/-. All the 40 trees were felled but the Tahsildar, Lonar seized those felled trees and reported to the S. D. O. who held under his order dated 07/9/1993 that the trees were felled by the petitioner without permission and hence were seized and put to auction which fetched price of Rs. 40,000/-which were deposited in the Government treasury and in addition, fine of Rs. 500/-was impos...
Travel Corporation (India) Private Limitd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1645; (2007)211CTR(Bom)552; [2007]293ITR577(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In these two petitions, the challenge is to the two notices both dated 6th March, 2006 whereby the completed assessments for A.Y.2000-01 and A.Y. 2001-02 are sought to be reopened under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short).2. Since the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessments are common, both these petitions are heard together and disposed off by this common judgment.3. Although the facts are not in dispute, to appreciate the rival contentions, we may note few facts in Writ Petition No.43 of 2007.4. Return of income filed by the petitioner/assessee for A.Y.2000-2001 was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 28-3-2003. By the said assessment order, deduction under Section 80HHD was allowed to the extent of Rs. 3,28,09,526/ as against the amount claimed at Rs. 5,48,71,321/-. On appeal filed by the assessee, the CIT (A) by his order dated 21-11-2003 allowed entire amount claimed by the assessee under Section 80HHD of the Act. Further a...
Asian Cerc Information Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Bom)363; [2007]293ITR271(Bom)
1. The petitioners aggrieved by the notice dt. 10th March, 2006 under Section 148 of the IT Act as also the order dt. 29th Nov., 2006 rejecting their objections have preferred the present petition. In view of the order to be passed we need not go into the facts on all the issues involved. The notice was issued on 10th March, 2006. Pursuant to the request by the petitioners the reasons to believe were communicated. The reasons recorded, that considering the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Arawali Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. the nature of the expenses incurred by the assessee in a sum of Rs. 62,79,638 needs to be examined and is required to be capitalised. The learned Counsel then draws our attention to the communication dt. 27th Sept., 2006 by the AO addressed to the senior audit officer wherein the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court is sought to be distinguished and a view is taken that the said judgment would not apply to the facts of the petitioner's case....
B.R. Bajaj and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: [2009]148CompCas636(Bom)
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure press for quashing the process issued in Criminal Case No. 764/S/2000 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th court, Esplanade, Mumbai, for an offence punishable under Section 63 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. M/s. Omega Ag-Seeds (India) Ltd. and M/s. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation (PAIC) signed a financial collaboration agreement on October 22, 1992 and as per the same PAIC was entitled to nominate three directors on the board of directors of Omega Ag-Seeds (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') and accordingly the present petitioners came to be nominated by PAIC as its nominee directors on the board of the company. The petitioners are the public servants inasmuch as they are the employees of the Punjab State Government and PAIC being a State undertaking which agreed to be collaborated for the formation of the...
Gulf Goans Hotels Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Asst ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2007
Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1417; (2008)214CTR(Bom)14
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard both sides. Admit. By consent of both the parties, heard forthwith. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant impugning the Assessment Orders made for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, which have been confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide his order dated 15.5.1998 and which have further been confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panjim Bench, Panjim vide its Order dated 19.1.2007. It appears that the lower authorities upheld the imposition of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had levied penalty of Rs. 4,13,732/-for the assessment year 1994-95 and penalty of Rs. 8,73,460/-for the assessment year 1995-96 on the footing that the appellant had wrongly claimed deductions under Sections 80HHD of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was levied on the footing that the assessee had not obtained approval for registration in the Directorate General of Tourism, Government of India as per the prov...
Vinod Son of Subhashrao Shinde, Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR540; 2008(1)BomCR485
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule in Writ Petition Nos. 5081/2006, 653/2007, 1250/2007, 5062/2006, 5305/2006 and 5847/2006 returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. Writ Petition No. 5081/2006 was filed in this Court on 9.10.2006. On 11.10.2006 this Court issued notice before admission returnable after four weeks and made an interim order preventing respondent No. 4 - Yavatmal District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Yavatmal from issuing appointment orders without obtaining orders of this Court. The said writ petition was ordered to be tagged with Writ Petition No. 5062/2006. Thereafter on 21.4.2007 Civil Application No. 2907/2007 was filed by Counsel for respondent No. 4 - Bank seeking permission to issue appointment orders. On the same day Civil Application No. 2909/2007 was also filed by the proposed appointees for joining them as intervenors in the writ petition. On 23.4.2007 this Court adjourned Writ Petitions for final disposal at the admission stage after summer v...
The Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation Vs. Smt. Lata Dashrath ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR290; [2007(115)FLR160]; 2007(4)MhLj112
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 4.8.2005 of the Labour court passed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The claim of Respondent No. 1 has been allowed partly.2. The undisputed facts in the present case are as follows:Respondent No. 1 was employed as a Pharmacist with the Leprosy Hospital run by the Solapur Municipal Corporation from 23.11.1986 on daily wages. She continued working on a daily wage of Rs. 19/- upto 14.8.1987 after which she was extended the regular payscale for the post of Pharmacist. Respondent No. 1 had by then secured a Diploma in Pharmacy. She worked not only at the Leprosy hospital but also at other hospitals as directed by the Petitioner. An order was issued by the Petitioner on 11.12.1996 directing that all employees who had obtained a Diploma in Pharmacy should be accorded the payscales recommended by the IV Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The arrears of pay were also directed to be paid. According...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »