Mumbai Court August 2007 Judgments
Vardhaman Dye-stuff Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. M.R. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: [2008]82SCL220(Bom)
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The appellants, (original respondent) being dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 17-1-2005 passed by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, 'CLB'), have preferred present appeal under Section 10(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'Companies Act').2. In the year 2000-01 the respondent raises certain disputes with the appellants. In the month of December, 2001, the respondent files a petition No. 2 of 2002 under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Company Law Board, New Delhi against the Appellants.3. On 27-1-2005, by the impugned order the CLB though holds that no case of oppression has been made out by the respondent, yet directed the appellants to purchase the shares of the respondent. Hence the appeal.4. The relevant conclusion as arrived at by the CLB is as under:36.1 find that the petitioner has been indulging in forum shopping and she was aware of everything happening in the company till the dispute aros...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd. Vs. Rainbow Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas523(Bom); [2008]83SCL196(Bom)
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present petition is filed on the basis that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts and, therefore, it is just and equitable to wind-up the company. The company is indebted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 3,23,92,000 (Rupees three crores twenty three lakhs ninety two thousand only) along with interest thereon at the rate of 1.5 per cent per month compounded with monthly rests.2. In June, 1998, pursuant to the diverse transactions entered into between the petitioner and the company a sum of over Rs. 5 crores was found due and payable by the company to the petitioner.3. On 22-9-1998, an agreement was arrived at between the parties whereby the company acknowledged and admitted its liability and agreed to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,68,92,000. The terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties were reduced to writing. A Memorandum of Understanding dated 22-9-1998 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'MOU') was arrived at and executed by...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shri Shailesh N.C. Shah, Shri N.D.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC84
2. The Revenue has filed all the three appeals against the Order-in-Appeal No. 69/2005 TS (M&P) dated 26.08.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai who has set aside the confiscation order of foreign origin ball bearings and the penalties imposed on the respondents. The facts that lead to in filing the afore-said appeals may be summed up as follows: 3. On the basis of specific information, the officers of SGP II Unit kept a discreet watch and intercepted two hand carts loaded with 20 bundles and 3 bundles of ball bearings of foreign origin respectively.There were no legitimate Customs duty paying documents or any other document available with the handcart puller. The handcart puller lead the officers to the godown from where the ball bearings were loaded on their hand carts. The said godown was inspected and found 99 similar bundles of ball bearing of foreign origin. The manager / supervisor of the godown Shri Hiten M. Metha was asked for the legitimate customs...
Tag this Judgment!National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: (2008)(125)ECC56
1. In this case, the authorities below had denied the benefit of Nil rate of Customs duty in terms of serial No. 226(1) of Notification No.11/97 -Cus dtd. 1.3.97 to the appellants herein on the ground that they are more appropriately covered by Serial No. 226(iii) of the above Notification as captive power plants 5MW and above and therefore, they are chargeable to 20% of Customs basic duty and additional duty of customs of 13%.2. On hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute stands settled by the Apex Court decision in Zuari Industries Ltd v. CCE &C , wherein the benefit of Nil rate of duty has been extended to M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd. treating the project as fertilizer project and set aside the order of the Tribunal by which the benefit of concessional rate in terms of Sr. No. 226(iii) for capital power plant 5 MW and above was extended. The Supreme Court has held that the Sponsoring Ministry had considered that for the expansion of fertilizer project the appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!Rohan Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: (2008)304ITR314(Mum.)
1. These appeals by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2000-01, are disposed off by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No: 1429/Mum/2005:- The first ground of objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Assessee filed the return on 29.05.2000 declaring income at Rs. 9,55,370/- along with audited accounts and other documents. The reopening was done under Section 147 of the Act, vide order sheet entry dated 12.01.2004. The reasoning for the reopening is reproduced at Page 1 and 2 of the assessment order, which reads as under: The assessee company has filed the return of income on 29.11.2000, which has been accepted Under Section 143(1) of the Act. The perusal of the Balance-sheet reveals that the capital reserves has increased by Rs. 1.54 crores. Further, the assessee has enclosed a copy of Memorandum Of Understanding dated 24.08.1999 exec...
Tag this Judgment!inter Classic Jewellery (i) (P) Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Mum.)402
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the Order dt.14th July, 2004 of the CIT (A)-VIII, Mumbai for the asst. yr. 2001-02.The following grounds are taken by the assessee: 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in treating the service charges received as income not qualifying for exemption Under Section 10A. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in not allowing exemption as per the provisions of Sub-section (1) r/w Sub-section (4) of Section 10A. He ought to have directed the AO to treat and include the amount of service charges receipts as forming part of total turnover and allowed exemption in accordance with the formula given in Sub-section (4) of Section 10A of the IT Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing reasonable expenses against service charges receipts as he has allowed expenses only at 10 per cent of the receipts leaving the balance 90 per cent liable to tax which is totally unrealistic and unreason...
Tag this Judgment!Head Master, Kalsulkar English School and anr. Vs. Smt. Kalpana Sanjay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR549; [2007(115)FLR572]; 2007(6)MhLj742
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order of the School Tribunal dated 26.9.1997. By this order, the School Tribunal has held that the notice of termination of service dated 30.3.1996 was illegal, ineffective and void ab initio. The petitioners have been directed to reinstate Respondent No. 1 to her original post and to pay her backwages, including all allowances, till her reinstatement.2. The petitioners had appointed Respondent No. 1 on a clock-hourly basis on 5.8.1993. She worked for 9 months on this basis and was paid remuneration in accordance with law. It is the case of the petitioners that for the next academic year i.e., 1994-95, one Nitin Deshpande was appointed instead of Respondent No. 1. On 1.7.1995, the petitioners appointed Respondent No. 1 in a reserved post, temporarily for one year, subject to the approval of the education officer. The petitioners had appointed Respondent No. 1 pursuant to the advertisement issued by them in accordance with the dir...
Tag this Judgment!Swapna D/O Tulsidas Gajare Since Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Fa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR519; (2007)109BOMLR1987; 2008(1)MhLj442
P.V. Kakade, J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as the respondent - Board.2. In view of the facts and circumstances, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent and taken up for hearing.3. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking relief against the respondent Board to the effect that directions be issued to the respondent to the extent that the order of impugned punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the Respondent be quashed declaring it to be null and void and against the settled principles of law. The petitioner further sought directions to the respondent-Board to declare result of the petitioner for the 10th standard examination conducted in March, 2007.4. The factual matrix involved in the dispute is to the effect that the petitioner is a student of Saraswati Bhuwan Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Jalna. She appeared for the 10th i.e. SSC examination conducted by the respondent in March, 2007 through Marathi medium. The petitioner is the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Raghunath Dhadphale, Trustee (Since Deceased by His Heirs Shri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR204; 2007(6)BomCR72; 2007(6)MhLj646
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Both the appeals can be disposed of by a common order since the appellants in both these appeals are challenging the judgment and order passed by the 4th Assistant Judge, Pune, who has by his judgment and order dismissed the Misc.Application No. 61/76 and Misc.Application No. 79/76 and upheld the order passed by the Charity Commissioner who had by his order under Section 50(A) framed a scheme in respect of the trust known as Shri Vakeshwar and Shri Vithal Devasthan. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals are as under:2. Shri Vakeshwar and Shri Vithal Devasthan are the deities having two separate temples situated at Pashan, Pune. Initially, by virtue of an Inam which was created in favour of the appellant on 9.5.1769, the said temple alongwith deities and the adjoining land was given in Inam with the avowed object of worshiping the said deities and performing the religious ceremonies of the said deities. Even exemption was granted on p...
Tag this Judgment!Gitesh Pipes Private Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Indian ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1921
P.R. Borkar, J.1. Heard Mr. P.M. Shah, learned Senior Counsel holding for Mr. R.R. Mantri, advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K.G. Patil, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.2. The petitioner challenges the Government Circular dated 23.3.2000 which provides 31.12.2000 as cut off date and seeks its quashing and setting aside with further direction that the respondents should grant the Sales Tax Incentive under package scheme of 1993 to the petitioner Company and to further restrain the respondents from recovering any sales tax from the petitioners.3. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 as a Private Limited Company. Petitioner No. 2 is its Director having authority to sign and act on it's behalf. It is case of the petitioners that in order to achieve dispersal of industries out of Mumbai,Thane, Pune belt and to attract them in the under-developed and developing areas of the State, respondent No. 1 offered packages of incentives ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »