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.
Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Talathi of Village Chikhali and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR550; 2007(5)BomCR738; 2007(5)MhLj45
R.S. Mohite, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners, Tata Motors Limited, seek a writ to quash and set aside demand notices dated 26-2-2002, 1-3-2002 and 5-3-2002 at exhibits 'C', 'E' and 'F' to the petition issued by the Talathi, village Chikali, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune. By the said notices, the petitioners have been called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 45,25,536/- being the N.A. assessment for the period 1995 till the year 2002 as per the details given in the impugned notices.2. The petitioners' case is that under a lease deed dated 3-1-1995 executed by the Chief Executive Officer of Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, they were leased 164.5 acres of land in sector Nos. 15 and 15A of village Chikali, taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune. By further lease deed dated 1-3-1995 also executed by the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, they were leased a further area of 23.5 acres in sector No. 15 of village Chikali, taluka Haveli, Dist....
Pramilabai Prabhakar Bulbule Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR601; 2007(5)MhLj657
Joshi A.H., J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent.2. Parties are not on dispute as to the facts of the case. In the judgment under appeal, learned Single Judge has narrated the facts in para 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment as under:10. The facts of the present case demonstrate that on 9.2.1974 Government sanctioned Foreign Liquor Licence in favour of petitioner's husband, but the then Police Commissioner, Nagpur informed that there were two offences against the said Prabhakar in relation to his Raj Beer Bar. On 29.5.1974 it was informed that since 1967 to 1974, 17 offences under Bombay Prohibition Act, were registered against Prabhakar and in relation to some offence trial was going on. Police also communicated that there was involvement in stealthy sale of psychotropic substances. The Superintendent, State Excise also informed the State Government not to sanction FL-II licence to him. Thereafter, Prabhakar on 2.1.1975 moved Hon'ble Minister and at tha...
Domaji Marotrao Ubale Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR52; 2008(1)BomCR767
Chaudhari A.B., J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the judgment and order dated 24.7.1992, passed by the Labour Court, Nagpur and confirmed in Revision by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Nagpur Bench), Nagpur, refusing to grant back wages to the petitioner though there was an order directing his reinstatement in service.FACTS:2. The petitioner, who was working as a helper with the M.S.R.T.C. was charged for committing theft of a 'Drive Shaft'. An enquiry was held into the charge levelled against him and at the same time a criminal case was also filed against him upon the F.I.R. lodged by the employer. In the departmental enquiry, the charge was proved. As a result of the petitioner having been found guilty, the respondent dismissed him from service by order dated 13.2.1987. That dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court by filing complaint. The Labour Court held that the charge levelled against the petitioner of commission of thef...
The Income Tax Officer (Tds) Vs. Bhoruka Roadlines Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: (2008)300ITR193(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the department against the order of the CIT(A) relating to assessment year 2002-03.2. The department is objecting in deleting the demand raised Under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.2.1 While objecting the deletion of demand, the department has mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the suppliers/brokers of the trucks are sub contractors within the meaning of the provisions of Section 194C in as much as the assessee negotiates the rate with the suppliers/brokers of the trucks and payments are also made to them.2.2 Briefly stated facts of the ease are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of transportation of goods for various clients all over India on contract basis. A survey action Under Section 133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee company on 21.1.2002. On the basis of material gathered in the course of survey action, the Assessing Officer concluded that the appellant h...
Vidarbha Chambers of Commerce and Industries, a Association of Traders ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR536; 2007(4)MhLj82
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner. Association is challenging the increase in transit fee from Rs. 20/-to Rs.50/-by Respondent No. 1. Municipal Corporation, on the ground that it is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. During arguments, Shri Lohiya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also contended that in fact there could not be levy of any transit fee on goods/ transport vehicles which used National Highway only for passing from one point to another point and therefore today he has moved an application seeking permission to amend prayer clause by which he is seeking quashing and setting aside of relevant provisions of Standing Orders framed by Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 466(1)(A)(f) of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As the necessary facts are already on record in writ petition with necessary assertions, we have al...
Babubhai Chhanaalal Satwara and ors. Vs. Sunder Ratansi Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR811; 2007(4)BomCR518
Bobde S.A., J.1. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, dated 30th November, 1993 in respect of the valuation of the suit under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. The respondent-plaintiff has sued the petitioner-defendant for possession of the entire open space behind the plaintiffs property known as Palan Sojpal Building by removing the shed with its extension thereon allegedly, unauthorizedly put up by the petitioner.2. The plaintiff valued the claim in the suit at Rs. 10,000/- being the market value of the entire open space and for reliefs in respect of the trespass by the defendant at Rs. 4,975.3. Upon the Defendants raising a plea that the suit is not properly valued, it was referred to the Registrar of the City Civil Court under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. The Registrar prepared a report that the valuation of the property should be made on the basis of the market value of the property at Rs. 1,69,50...
Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR236; (2007)211CTR(Bom)10; [2007]293ITR548(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on business of software development and consultancy. The petitioner is regularly assessed to income-tax. The petitioner has several EOU/STP units engaged in the business of export of software. The nature of business of these units is mainly on site projects at customer's site abroad and off shore projects, which are executed from India. The petitioner filed return of income for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 relevant to the previous year ended 31st March, 1999 on 27th Dec, 1999 declaring loss of Rs. 14,62,89,330. An intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act dt. 8th Feb., 2002 was issued accepting the returned loss.2. On 27th March, 2006 the respondent No. 1 issued notice under Section 148 of the Act in which it was stated that he had reason to believe that the petitioner's income chargeable to tax for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 had escaped assessment within the meaning ...
Kapal Mehra Vs. Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR116; III(2008)BC538; 2008(2)BomCR359; 2008CriLJ1134; 2007(6)MhLj58
V.C. Daga, J.1. The applicants in all these three revision applications preferred under Sections 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short) are the original accused No. 3 in Cr. Case Nos. 1019/S/1997 to 1021/S/1997 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Greater Mumbai ('the Trial Court') filed by the respondent No. 1 - original complainant for the offence punishable under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the N.I. Act' for short).2. Considering the points involved in the three revision applications, on consensus, these revision applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.The Facts:3. Case of the original respondent - complainant M/s Indusind Enterprises and Finance Limited, is that on the request of the accused, it had discounted Bill of Exchange and that the accused had agreed to pay the entire amount representing th...
Bharat Machindra Parekar and anr. Vs. Anjanabai W/O Babarao Thaware an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR728; 2007(6)BomCR319; 2007(6)MhLj706
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Both the Second appeals are being disposed of by this common Judgment inasmuch as they arise out of common Judgment rendered by the First Appellate Court in two inter connected appeals (R.C.A. No. 107 of 1981 and R.C.A. No. 223 of 1981).2. Unfortunately no substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission of the appeals nor any substantial question of law is indicated in the appeal Memo of either appeal. The Apex Court in 'B.C. Shivashankara v. B.R. Nagaraj AIR 2007 SCW 1588 observed:Sub-section (5) of Section 100 is applicable only when any substantial question of law has already been formulated and it empowers the High Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law. The expression 'on any other substantial question of law' clearly shows that there must be some substantial question of law already formulated and then only another substantial question of law which was not formulated earlier can be ta...
Khaja Industries Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR887; 2008(2)BomCR860; 2007(6)MhLj712
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent banks under the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Securitisation Act') on merits, the applicability of the said Act to co-operative banks including those constituted under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the MCS Act) and the constitutional validity of the said Act.2. There is little, if anything, to be said in favour of the petitioners on merits. They are debtors of the respondent co-operative banks and, prima-facie atleast, there appears to be no defence to the claim of the respondent banks on merits. The petitioners have however challenged the Constitutional validity of the Securitisation Act. In Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2004(2) M.L.J. (SC) 1090 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Securitisation...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »