Mumbai Court August 2007 Judgments

Konkan Barge Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Bom)575; [2008]297ITR39(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The appeal is admitted on the following questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal in law ought to have held that the interest of Rs. 43,99,404 received under the arbitration award dt. 28th Feb., 1995 at the rate of 12 per cent on the amount of Rs. 67,92,524 for the period from 31st July, 1989 to 25th July, 1995, was only a measure and method of payment of compensation and was not decisive of the character of compensation inasmuch as the award was made only on 28th Feb., 1995 and the question of payment of interest can arise only after the same is made?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal in law ought to have held the appellant having received interest of Rs. 43,99,404 under the arbitration award dt. 28th Feb., 1995 at the rate of 12 per cent on the amount of Rs. 67,92,524 for the period from 31st July, 1989 to 25th July, 1995, only the interest pertaining to the period 1st April, 19...

New Education Institute and ors. Vs. MahejabIn Ashfak Ahmed Shaikh and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR516; 2008(1)BomCR746; 2008(1)MhLj69

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the School Tribunal dated 7-2-1997. The School Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 and directed the petitioners to reinstate her in her original post with benefits of backwages.2. Respondent No. 1 was appointed temporarily as a teacher in 1991 for the academic year 1991-92 on a clock hour basis. This appointment was for a period of 10 months against a reserved category post. Thereafter, in the year 1992-93, she was appointed as a full time teacher for a temporary period of one year. Her appointment was approved by the Education Officer respondent No. 3. In the academic year 1993-94 respondent No. 1 was again appointed as an Assistant teacher. The appointment order stated that her appointment was for a period of one year. However, this appointment was against a clear permanent vacancy. By an order of 30-4-1994, the petitioners issued an order of termination to respondent No. 1. This order stated tha...

Sanjay Rooplal Jaiswal Vs. Gangulal Dhannulal Jaiswal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR87; 2008(1)MhLj161

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioner seeks reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator for settling it. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11(5) and (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act of 1996).Respondents, after entering into appearance have filed counter and denied the claim of the petitioner.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri Patni, in support of his submissions, relied upon various judicial pronouncements. I will refer these pronouncements at the appropriate stage. Shri Challani, learned Counsel for respondents submits that alternate remedy is available to the petitioner for recovery of the alleged amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. According to him, the petitioner was working with respondents as a servant. He has invited my attention to the notice issued on behalf of petitioner referring 90 per cent partnership in the business. He has also invited my attention to partnership deed, wherein, partnership in favour of the petitioner is referred as 40 per c...

Anuja Prabhudessai Vs. State of Goa

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR415; 2008(2)MhLj131

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. This appeal arises from Order dated 17th July, 2006 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1 of 2006 whereby while discharging the contempt notice certain observations have been made.2. The impugned order is sought to be challenged firstly on the ground that the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to deal with the matters regarding civil contempt at the relevant time considering the assignment of the judicial work by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that at the relevant time, the assignment regarding Civil Contempts was not with the learned Single Judge.3. Undoubtedly, the impugned order nowhere discloses that the point of lack of jurisdiction was ever raised before the learned Single Judge. Secondly it is not in dispute that after disposal of the petition by the learned Single Judge, the appellant, at any point of time, had filed any affidavit before the learned Single Judge bringing to his notice that the point of ...

Chandrakant Ghuse Vs. Vasantrao Zade and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2008)BC618; 2008CriLJ2122

ORDERC.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard Finally with consent of parties.2. These two applications under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are filed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), whereby he rejected an application for summoning a witness along with certain document.3. The present applicants are the accused in criminal case instituted against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It is the case of the complainant that the present applicant/accused issued a cheque which came to be dishonoured. After conclusion of the evidence of the complainant, the statement of the accused/applicant was recorded by the court under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. While such statement was recorded, the accused has stated that besides him, he also wants to examine certain other witness.4. The accused examined himself and another witness. Thereafter he filed an application on 3-7-2007 summoning a witness from the bank along with slip under...

General Metallisers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC166

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of metallised aluminium paper and had availed modvat credit of Rs. 98,655/- vide RG-23 Part II entry dated 04/08/1990 on inputs, namely, evaporation boats, on the strength of bill of entry dated 18/07/1990 under the provisions of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As the department was of the view that this credit was not admissible show cause notice was issued and the amount was confirmed vide order-in-original dated 08/04/1991. The amount was paid on 18/10/2002. On 19/08/2005 the Superintendent of Central Excise called upon the appellants to pay interest of Rs. 1,20,606/-, to which the appellants responded by letter dated 30/08/2005, stating that the case relates to 1990 during which period there was no provision for recovery of interest in the Central Excise Act (such provision was inserted only on 26/05/1995) and hence demand of interest being untenable may be withdrawn. This was ...

Mashreque Bank Vs. Dy. Director of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 15-1-2001 by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1997-98.2. Ground Nos. 1, as raised in the grounds of appeal before us, was stated to be not pressed. As such the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.3. In ground Nos. 2 and 3, the only grievance pressed before us is that in view of the provisions of Article 7(3) of India-UAE tax treaty, artificial disallowances such as in respect of entertainment expenses and in respect of payments in violation of Rule 6D cannot be made.4. This issue also came up in assessee's own case for the assessment year 1996-97 which was heard along with this appeal. Learned representatives have fairly agreed that whatever is decided in the assessment year 1996-97 will follow in this year as well.5. While dealing with the assessment year 1996-97, and vide our order dated 13-4-2007, we...

Kankhal Investments and Trading Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, the same are being disposed off by the common order for the sake of convenience.2. The main issue arising from these appeals is whether lower authorities were justified in disallowing deduction Under Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of interest paid on borrowings which were utilized for acquiring shares as Long Term Investments.3. Since the facts are similar in all the appeals, the detailed facts in the case of Nikhil Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. are being narrated for the sake of convenience. The assessee borrowed the sum of Rs. 2548 lakhs from Reliance Capital Ltd. on 11.01.1997 out of which the sum of Rs. 2494.24 lakhs were utilized for acquiring 11,98,000 shares of L & T Ltd. The interest payable on such borrowing for the Assessment Year 1998-99 amounted to Rs. 3,74,13,520/- vis-a-vis, the investment in above shares. The same was claimed as deduction Under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Para 8 o...

Maker Tower a and B Co-op. Hsg. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, the same are being disposed off by the common order, for the sake of convenience.2. The first issue common to both the appeals, relates to the additions of Rs. 1,01,41,500 and Rs. 60,61,600, pertaining to assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02, respectively, on account of transfer fees received by the assessee from the transferors and transferees on the occasion of transfer of flats. This issue arises from ground Nos. 1 to 4 relating to both the appeals.3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a co-operative housing society which received the aforesaid amounts during the years under consideration, at the time of transfer of flats from the transferors as well as the transferees. These amounts were not offered for taxation on the ground that concept of mutuality applied in the assessee's case. However, the assessing officer was of the view that concept of mutuality did not apply to the case of the assessee for the reasons ...

Prof. Krishnaraj Goswami, Advocate Vs. the Reserve Bank of India Throu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR565; (2007)109BOMLR1981; [2008]83SCL113(Bom)

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. On 22nd December, 2006, the Reserve Bank of India issued the following circular.RESERVE BANK OF INDIADate : Dec. 22, 2006Foreign investment in Infrastructure Companies in Securities Markets.RBI/2006-07/218A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 25December 22, 2006ToAll Category-1 Authorised Dealer Banks.Madam/Sir,Foreign investment in infrastructure Companies in Securities Markets -Amendment to the Foreign Direct Investment Scheme.Attention of Authorised Dealer Category - 1 (AD Category - 1) banks is invited to Schedule 1 to Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000, notified vide FEMA Notification No. 20/2000-RB dated May 3, 2000, as amended from time to time.2. It has been decided in consultation with Government of India to allow foreign investment in infrastructure Companies in Securities Markets, namely stock exchanges, depositories and clearing corporations, in compliance with SEBI Regulations an...