Mumbai Court August 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.
Sukhdeo S/O Hiraman Dahihande, (Deceased) (Through Legal Heirs Smt. Ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR746; 2007(5)BomCR532; 2008(1)MhLj55
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 107/1986 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and eviction decree passed by the trial court. 2. The petitioner, was the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 240/1980, filed by the present respondents, against the present petitioner. Parties hereinafter are referred to their status as plaintiffs and defendant in R.C.S. No. 240/1980. Defendant Sukdeo died during the pendency of this writ petition and his legal heirs have been brought on record.3. The plaintiffs filed R.C.S. No. 240/1980 for possession of the suit property and arrears of rent on several grounds. One of the ground raised, was regarding default in payment of rent from May 01, 1978 to January 31, 1979 i.e. for eight months amounting to Rs. 320/-. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property, was let out to the defendant at the monthly rent of Rs. ...
Pushpa Jivatram Mihani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR608; 2007(5)MhLj754
R.C. Chavan, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent of parties.2. This appeal raises the following short question:Whether the Collector deciding an appeal under Section 137 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 can condone under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the delay in preferring such an appeal?3. Facts, which gave rise to the controversy, have been elaborately enumerated in the erudite judgment of the learned Single Judge, who dismissed appellant's Writ Petition No. 4962 of 2006. The appellant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 46,11,394.80 towards the arrears of excise duty by demand notice dated 23-6-2003. The appellant preferred appeal under Section 137 of the Bombay Prohibition Act on 10-6-2005 challenging the said demand notice. The period prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 137(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act expired on 25-8-2003 and thus the appeal had been filed substantially after the prescribed period was over. The appellant ...
Bharat Forge Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)9STR67
1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 1,18,61,529/-, Education Cess of Rs. 2,22,308/- and penalty of Rs. 100/- per day under the provision of Section 76 and Rs. 1,20,83,837/- under the provision of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the period of dispute is 9-7-2004 to 31-1-2006) and find that a strong prima facie case has been made out by the applicants in the light of the Tribunal's order in the case of Welspitn Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd. v. CC & CE, Vadodara-II 2007 (5) S.T.R. 38 (Tri-Mum) holding that Service Tax is not payable on Business Auxiliary Services as prima facie, services rendered are provided by foreign companies in countries outside India and in the present case, prima facie, the service has been rendered outside India i.e. in Australia, Sri Lanka etc.2. We, therefore, waive the pre-deposit of amounts in question and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal....
income Tax Officer Vs. Ranisati Fabric Mills P. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Mum.)177
1. This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the Order of the CIT (A) on various grounds which are as under: 1.On. the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-XIV, Mumbai, has erred in deleting the amount of Rs. 55,46,340/- being processing charges paid by the appellant company without appreciating the fact that the assessee company was neither able to provide evidence in respect of work done by the sub contractors nor was able to give the whereabouts of the sub contractors, despite a string of opportunities given by the Assessing Officer. 2. Further the learned CIT (A) has erred in deleting the aforesaid addition, despite the fact that the assessee company had not adduced even a shred of evidence regarding the actual services having been rendered by the sub contractors. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)-XIV, Mumbai, has erred in deleting the amount, of Rs. 4,57,000/- being fixed payment made to M/s. S.N. Raj &...
Trimurthy Packing Paper and anr. Vs. Corporation Bank and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)MhLj537
R.M. Savant, J.1. This appeal challenges the Order dated 31-3-1998 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad by which order the application M.A.R.J.I. No. 158/1994 filed by the appellants herein came to be rejected.2. The facts involved in the present appeal are stated thus:The appellants are the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 215 of 1987 filed by the respondent No. 1 Bank against the appellants and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for recovery of the loan amount. The appellants filed their written statement in the said suit and resisted the claim of the respondent No. 1 bank. Along with the written statement, the appellants had also filed a counter-claim to the tune of Rs. 4,92,987/-. The respondent No. 1, original plaintiffs, led evidence and the witnesses were also cross-examined on behalf of the appellants/defendants. Thereafter, the case was posted for evidence of the present appellants/defendants but the defendants were absent. The adjournment applicat...
Vitthal Nityanand Mohite and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR653; 2007(6)BomCR571
Joshi A.H., J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is called for final disposal by consent.2. Heard.3. The petitioners have moved for a Writ of Quo Warranto seeking a declaration that the respondent No. 4 ceases to be a Councilor and consequently as a Mayor too, in view of the Order passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Akola, dated 15th January, 2007, declaring that having involved in the Act of illegal construction, the respondent No. 4 stands disqualified under Section 10[1-D] of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments, namely:[a] (Bhaskar Timappa Shetty v. Caste Scrutiny Committee and Ors.) 2007(2) Bom.C.R. 777 : 2007(2) All.M.R. 602.[b] (Datiatruya S/o Ramrao Thorat v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) 2003 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 110 : 2002(4) All. 807, and[c] (Edwin Francis Britto v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.) : 2006(6)BomCR92 .According to le...
Babu Bhikaji Shinde Vs. Maharashtra State Handlooms Corporation Limite ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR990]; (2007)IIILLJ978Bom
R.M. Borde, J.1. Petitioner, in this petition, is challenging order dated February 11, 1991 ordering petitioner's retrenchment from services of respondent-Corporation with effect from February 15, 1991. By the impugned order, petitioner was offered one month's wages amounting to Rs. 1180/- in lieu of notice and further an amount of Rs. 5310/- towards full and final settlement of the compensation for retrenchment.2. Petitioner contends that initially he was appointed by the respondent-Corporation as a 'Mazdoor' at Wholesale Depot Aurangabad. By a subsequent order, issued on February 12, 1982, ex post facto sanction was accorded to the appointment of the petitioner by the Corporation. Petitioner was directed to appear before the Establishment Sub Committee of the Corporation on June 28, 1984 for the purpose of interview and after holding interview of the petitioner, he was appointed as a labourer in the pay scale of Rs. 150-225 and was posted at Chiplun. The initial appointment of the pe...
Adivasi Vikas Eklavya Amrut Sanjivani Samajik Sanstha Vs. State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR91; 2008(1)MhLj276
R.M. Borde, J.1. Petitioner-institution has approached this Court seeking a relief of quashment of communication dated 22-6-2006, whereby petitioner-Institution has been directed to close down five schools run by it, branding said schools as unauthorised, issued by the Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Nandurbar. Petitioner-Institution also seeks further relief in the nature of directions to respondent No. 1-State to release grants payable to the petitioner-Institution. Petitioner-Institution, by way of an interim relief, seeks a direction to release grant of Rs. 25,51,140/- payable to the petitioner, which the petitioner claims have been recommended by the Commissioner for Tribal Development, by letter dated 24-3-2004.2. Petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is also registered as Public Trust under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The area of operation of the petitioner-Institution's activ...
Raj Nair Vs. S.K. Laul and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Bom)409; [2008]299ITR389(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner was the owner of the flat and by an agreement entered into on June 30, 1992, agreed to sell the said property, namely, Flat No. 2, Shyam Sadan, 93, Ghod Bunder Road, S.V. Road, Khar (West), Bombay 400 052 admeasuring 870 sq. ft. carpet area. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 served notice under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is not challenging the action of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in purchasing the property. The petitioner, however, challenges the action of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 of discounting the amount of apparent consideration by a sum of Rs. 40,291 and the further action of retaining a sum of Rs. 14,251 towards the liability of the vendor for payment of transfer fees to be paid to the society. Though there was a challenge to the provisions of Section 269UA(6) as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution that has not been pursued, considering the subsequent judgments.2. The disputed amounts, therefore, are:(i) Rs. 40,291 towa...
Vivek S/O Late R.B. Mokadam Vs. Smt. Kiran W/O S.K. Nashine
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR752; 2007(5)BomCR496; 2007(6)MhLj158
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 5-7-2005 below Exh. l6-A in Special Civil Suit No. 368/2004.Facts:2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed a civil suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 368/2004 in the Court of IInd Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Nagpur for possession of the suit property. Respondent Smt. Kiran also had filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 280/2002 for declaration and specific performance of contract. After issuance of suit summons in Special Civil Suit No. 368/2004, the respondent/defendant who was served on 18-6-2004 filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the suit which was decided on 29-10-2004. A writ petition was then preferred in this Court against that order. The defendant made an application (Exh. 9) in the suit on 17-8-2004 for grant of four weeks' time to file written statement. That application was granted by the trial Court by way of last chance....
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »