Mumbai Court August 2007 Judgments

Smt. Sushilabai Manoharrao Kulkarni Vs. Kachruappa S/O Laxmanappa Tams ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR522; 2008(1)MhLj825

S.B. Deshmukh, J. 1. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Minister for State, Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The order is passed on 23rd February, 2005. Said proceeding was registered as No. 1604/1066/PK 797/NP21. Present Respondent No. 1, in this writ petition, was the petitioner (as mentioned in the order passed by the Minister). Present writ petitioner was Respondent No. 3 in the proceeding entertained and partly allowed by the learned Minister/ respondent No. 4.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the out set, has pointed out the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 10th of May, 2004. By this order, the order passed by the District Supply Officer dated 13th February, 2004, has been confirmed. The order passed by learned District Supply Officer, Parbhani dated 13th February, 2004 seems to have been passed under Clause 3 (4) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of...

Raghunath Motiram Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR664; 2007(6)BomCR660; 2008(2)MhLj78

Deshmukh S.B., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.3. A brief histories of lis would suffice. The Writ Petition No. 3017 of 2007, takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule in Inquiry No. 400 of 2007 passed on 3rd May, 2007. Writ Petition No. 3401 of 2007 challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule in Inquiry No. 415 of 2007, dated 22nd May, 2007.4. Writ Petition No. 3017, as noted above, challenges the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule in Inquiry Application No. 400 of 2007. This proceeding/inquiry application, indisputably, is registered at the instance of learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule Region, Dhule (suo motu). It appears that Borvihir Vidya Prasarak Sanstha, Taluka and District Dhule (hereinafter referred to as the trust, for short) is ...

V.D. Kavatkar Vs. Fatima Huseni Radhapurwala and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR663; 2008(1)BomCR346

Bobde S.A., J.1. This is a Reference by the Small Causes Court at Mumbai under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.2. An application was made by the original plaintiff in the suit for possession and upon hearing the respondents, the Small Causes Court made the reference of the orders dated 10th and 16th March, 2005 passed in Int. Notice No. 660/2005 in R.A.D. and E. Suit No. 1155/1905/2002 of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai.3. In the course of the suit, the original plaintiff has alleged contempt of injunction order dated 13th and 14th of October, 2003 passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Interim Notice No. 4877/2002 in R.A.D. and E. Suit No. 1155/1905 of 2002 taken out in the suit, which reads as follows:The notice is partly made absolute.Prayer (a) is granted i.e. Registrar of this Court is hereby appointed as Court Receiver in respect of the shop premises i.e. Shop Premises viz. 72/74, first floor, Room No. 1, Bhaji Pala Lane, Mumbai - 400 003, with all powers under Order 40, Rul...

Bharat S. Shah and ors. Vs. Rajkumar Jugalkishore Saraf

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR231; 2008(1)MhLj465

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.The appellants are the original respondents in Contempt Petition No. 230 of 2005 who have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge having issued rule in the matter of contempt proceedings initiated by the respondents. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Contempt Petition can be summed up as under:2. The contempt petition stems out of litigation between the parties filed in the Small Causes Court at Bombay. The appellants (original plaintiffs) hereinafter referred to as the 'owner' initiated proceedings against the respondents (original defendants) hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant' in the Small Causes Court for eviction. In the course of the proceedings, consent terms came to be drawn between the parties pursuant to which the tenants vacated the demised premises to enable the plaintiffs/owners to develop the property on the condition that the defendants/tenants would be pro...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Rameshwar Shridhar Jaware and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ675

Acts/Rules/Orders: Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 354 and 376; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973Cases Referred: Sheikh Zakir v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 911; State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658; Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 2007 (2) Crimes 103 : 2007 AIR SCW 1850 SCDisposition: Appeal dismissedjudgmentS.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. Challenge of the appellant State in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Criminal Appeal No. 9/1990, by which he allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents who were held guilty by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Buldana, for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 354 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, each of them being sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default R.I. for 6 months, in Sessions Case No. 61/1988, and acquitted them of the charge.2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that, prosecutrix PW-5 Ku. Savita d/o ...

Gokhatak Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR211

1. This stay application is directed against confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 9,05,523/- and equivalent amount of penalty.2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that they have deposited an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- during the pendency of the proceedings. He submits that the taxable value which have been arrived by the authority includes the value of Camera, photo-frames etc. and hence that value has to be left out for calculation of service tax amount payable by the appellant.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the taxable amount on which the service tax is to be charged. It is the contention of the learned advocate that they have sold the Cameras, photo frames etc. which is also included in the value. On the specific query from the Bench, learned advocate is unable to produce any invoice before us but he produces the Chartered Accountant's certificate indicating that the valu...

Dy. Cit, Range 12(1) Vs. Samta Marine Kakinada

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These four appeals and cross-objection have been filed by the assessee and the revenue against the separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals) - XII, Mumbai for the assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 against the orders under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, which are as under:ITA/CO No. Appeal filed by Assessment year Commissioner (Appeals)ITA No. 4807/Mum./02 Assessee 1997-98 17-7-2002ITA No. 5368/Mum./02 Revenue 1997-98 17-7-2002ITA No. 308/Mum./03 Revenue 1998-99 4-10-2002ITA No. 309/Mum./03 Revenue 1999-2000 4-10-2002CO No. 44/Mum/2004 Assessee 1999-2000 4-10-2002 The abovesaid four appeals and cross-objection filed by the revenue and the assessee were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition on account of cash expenses to the extent of Rs. 40,19,879 without appreciating the fact that the assessee h...

Aipita Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals are filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment years are 2000-2001 and 2001-2002.2. In the appeal for the assessment year 2000-2001, the first ground raised by the assessee is that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice Under Section 148, for re-assessment of the income is correct. The CIT(A) ought to have held that the said notice Under Section 148 dated 12.8.2002 and the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 14,10.2002 are bad in law and void ab initio.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the assessee contended that the assessee has disclosed truly and fully all the materials necessary for completing the assessment at the first instance itself. He stated that the assessment was completed Under Section 14.3w) accepting the return filed by the assessee and intimation was made on 15.2.2002. He submitted that the only income of the assessee for the impugned ...

Shankar R. Mhatre Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Mum.)397

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 13th Nov., 2006 for the asst. yr. 1998-99.Brief facts are as follows: 2. The assessee filed its original return of income declaring rental income and 'income from other sources' as well as agricultural income on 3rd Sept., 1999 with ITO, Ward-I(5), Kalyan. During the previous year 1997-98, the assessee wanted to take advantage of VDIS and filed a declaration. Later, the assessee had not paid taxes due on VDIS declaration. The AO received information from the concerned authority i.e. CIT-III, Thane, that the assessee had not been granted a certificate by the CIT, and that he cannot be allowed the benefit of VDIS-97, in respect of his disclosures made.3. The assessee in the declaration under VDIS-97disclosed assets i.e.lands and buildings totally valued at Rs. 33,85,000, but did not pay the tax on the assets so disclosed. Based on the information received, the AO reopened the proceedings unde...

Sayyad Tahir HussaIn MainuddIn and Rahul Ramesh Ambesange Vs. the Stat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR705; 2007(6)BomCR214; (2007)109BOMLR1906; 2007(6)MhLj633

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenges order passed by learned Single Judge of this High Court in Writ Petition No. 2366/2007 on 24.4.2007. By the impugned order, learned Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition partly.2. The dispute is between recently elected Councillors of Udgir Municipal Council because of alleged disqualification incurred by some of the Councillors in view of provisions of the Maharashtra 4 Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1987 (henceforth referred to as Disqualification Act for the sake of brevity).Elections to Udgir Municipal Council took place by voting on 19.11.2006. Appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 13 along with 33 others were declared elected as Councillors. Elections for the seat of President and Vice President were scheduled on 21.12.2006. It is alleged that party had issued a whip regarding voting at the elections for President and Vice President. Appellants and respondent Nos. 4 to 13, according t...