Mumbai Court July 2007 Judgments

Naresh K. Pafauja Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. For the sake of convenience all the aforesaid appeals are being disposed off by a Consolidated order. 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the reassessment as valid without appreciating that recorded reasons had not been communicated to the appellant, therefore, the reassessment is bad-in-law and the order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 is liable to be quashed.3. Briefly stated, the assessee had filed its return of income for the assessment year under appeal under Section 139(1) declaring total income at Rs. 59,050 which was processed and accepted under Section 143(l)(a)of the Income Tax Act without any adjustment. The business premises of the assessee were subsequently surveyed under Section 133A on 14-6-1999 in the course of which the statement of the assessee was recorded. Relevant portions of the said statement have been reproduced in the assessment order. In his statement, the assessee, inter alia, stated that he has received a gift of Rs. 13,2...

Mohammed Jaffar @ Jaffar @ Munna S/O Umar Mogal Vs. the State of Mahar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ4777

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal which was admitted on 5/3/2002 arises from the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 728 of 1988 on 13/12/2001. The appellant-accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(f) of IPC. He has been sentenced to suffer 4 years RI with fine of Rs. 500/-for the first offence, 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 500/-for the second offence and RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-for the third offence i.e. under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC. 2. As per the prosecution case, the accused was staying in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix and while he was alone in his house on 26/2/1988 he called her from the otla of house, which was opposite the door of the house of the accused, where she was sitting and at that time she was alone. After the prosecutrix entered the house of the accused, he removed her undergarment and committed rape on the prosecutr...

Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha and anr. Vs. Smt. Manharbala Jeram Damodar a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR651; 2007(5)BomCR1; 2007(5)MhLj341

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The order of reference dated 16-1-2006, which has occasioned the constitution of this Full Bench, has been passed by the learned Single Judge in view of a divergence of the views of the Division Benches of this Court, the first being in Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehra v. Indravati Dwarkadas Mehra : AIR2001Bom470 and the second in Letters Patent Appeal No. 129 of 1993, Bhagirathi Lingawade and Ors. v. Laxmi Silk Mills, decided on 3-9-1993. The provisions of Section 41(1) of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (for short, 'PSCC Act') and Section 5(4A) of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Rent Act') crop up for consideration in these petitions. In view of a conflict in the interpretation made by the Division Benches, in the aforesaid cases, on the language of these provisions the learned Single Judge has made a reference to the Larger Bench. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice has accordingly constituted this Full Bench to dec...

Deepak S/O Mohani Mohan Rai and anr. Vs. Jainabai Wd/O Mahadeo Waghare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR690; 2007(5)MhLj791

Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the 6th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur, on 13-2-2004 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 341/1992 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, on 30-4-1991 in Regular Civil Suit No. 794/1986 was reversed. When this second appeal came up for admission before this Court on 22nd February, 2005, the same was admitted on the following substantial question of law:(i) Whether the possession of the appellants in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 26-12-1973 is protected under the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act2. The brief facts which give rise to the present second appeal and to the substantial question of law framed hereinabove, are stated thus:The respondent is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff Jainabai for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession ...

Deepak S/O Dayaram Pendam Vs. Nagpur Municipal Corporation and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)MhLj617

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable, and the petition is heard.Petitioner's claim proceeds on a very simplified logic. According to the petitioner:(a) The petitioner and Shri Deorao Umredkar were the only candidates in the process of election of Mayor as other three candidates whose nominations were valid had withdrawn.(b)Admittedly, Shri Umredkar who was elected as a Mayor has suffered invalid action of his caste claim and as per the provisions of law he lose his status as Councillor retrospectively.(c)Therefore, it is a case where only one candidate i.e. petitioner remained in the fray for being elected as a Mayor.(d)It was the duty of the Returning Officer to declare him elected.2. In support of his contentions, learned Advocate Mr. Mirza placed reliance on various judgments for various points.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mirza then placed reliance on the following judgments.(1) Madhukar v. Jaswant : (1976)ILLJ86SC , 2 Rupadhar Pujari v. Gangadhar : AIR2004SC5007 , 3 Sagiruddi...

Ruchika Enterprises and ors. Vs. Shriram Enterprises

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)BC162

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.Heard finally with consent of parties.2. This is an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.3. Petitioners are the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Respondent instituted complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Respondent is a partnership firm and deals in crushed coal powder and bricket coal and building material. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm, Nos. 2 to 5 are its partners and Nos. 6 and 7 are the employees or authorised agents of the firm. All the petitioners are looking after the management and day-to-day business of the accused firm. As such all accused persons are acquainted with the transaction between the respondent and the petitioners. Respondent had supplied different quantity of coal powder and bricket coal from time-to-time to the pet...

Cc Vs. Faisal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC219

1. Heard the ld. JDR. At the stage of admission itself the merits of this appeal have been heard through the ld. JDR Shri Jadhav. The facts of the case are that the authorities concerned have seized certain quantity of toys of Chinese made under the reasonable belief that they were smuggled in nature and the owners of the goods have failed to produce any documentary proof to show for its legal import. On adjudication of the matter the Assistant Commissioner. Mumbai recorded a finding that the respondent herein viz. Shri Faisal Abdul Gaffar Mewawala cleared foreign made toys of Chinese original valued at Rs. 5760/- without any proper documentation for its legal import.Accordingly the goods were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 3,000/-. He also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 5,00/- under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. However, the department not being satisfied with the penalt...

Deputy Cit Vs. Haria Exports Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)112ITD203(Mum.)

1. These are cross appeals filed by both the parties against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 6-2-2003. The appeals relate to assessment year 1999-2000. ITA No. 2771 /Mum./'2003 -.Assessee's appeal 2. The assessee has taken 11 grounds of appeal, out of which the assessee has pressed only Ground Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10. Other grounds of appeal have not been pressed and hence they are dismissed as not pressed. We shall now take up each of the grounds pressed at the time of hearing, for disposal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming exclusion of a sum of Rs. 10,20,31,150 from the export turnover of the year for the purpose of computing admissible deduction under Section 80HHC. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the person who are entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC are those who are engaged in the business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise. Such deduc...

Syed Zakir Ali S/O Jawar Ali Vs. Syed Zahid Ali S/O Jawar Ali

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR17; 2007(3)ARBLR321(Bom); 2007(4)BomCR500

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The Appeal is to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself as controversy is very old & Appeal is pending for admission since 2001. 2. This Appeal is under Section 17 read with Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and challenges the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2000 delivered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia, in Arbitration Case and Special Civil Suit No. 19 of 1990. The Old Case Nos. are R.C.S. No. 106 of 1971 and 14 of 1971. This First Appeal which is pending for admission since 2001 came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 14.6.2006. The Appellant who appears in person thereafter moved Civil Application No. 6995 of 2006 along with M.C.A. St. No. 16390 of 2006 seeking restoration of said First Appeal and condonation of delay of 94 days in moving that application for restoration. We have allowed that application on 30.4.2007 by imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/-upon present Appellant. The costs have been accordingly pai...

Koyala Udyog Kamgar Sanghatan Through Its Secretary, Mrs. V. Chandra V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR36; 2007(4)BomCR486; 2007(4)MhLj766

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The challenge in both these Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India is to the action of Respondents/Employer of effecting the recovery of amount of H.R.A. i.e. house rent allowance allegedly paid in excess to Petitioners/Employees. Said recovery is on the ground that revised provision and formula for payment of H.R.A. evolved as per National Coal Wage Agreement VI, hereinafter referred to as NCWA-VI has been implemented with effect from 1/6/2001 and therefore payment of H.R.A. in accordance with NCWA-V from 1/7/1996 till 31/5/2001 on revised basic salary i.e. as revised by NCWA-VI was illegal and unwarranted. Petitioners have prayed for quashing & setting aside of the order as contained in fax message dated 5/3/2003 ordering its recovery. W. P. 2103/2003 is filed by ten individuals. There is also prayer to refund the amount if recovered with interest @ 18% per annum in W. P. 2190/2003. Petitioner therein is a trade union registered under...