Mumbai Court September 2007 Judgments

Rajkumar Dhanuji Bombarde Vs. Madhukar Wankhede and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ661

ORDERC.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.Heard finally with the consent of parties.This is an application under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code.2. A few facts may be narrated thus:Applicant was Vice President of Ashok Shikshan Sanstha, Gondia Non applicants were associated with the Society and had no administrative control over it, yet it is alleged that they misappropriated large funds of the Society by forging certain documents. The applicant, therefore, lodged a report with the police. The police registered an offence. The non applicants, therefore, filed an application under Section 482 before this Court praying to quash the F.I.R. and also sought protection from arrest. It was alleged in that application that no other application claiming such relief and with regard to same subject matter was filed in any other Court. However, the non applicants had filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge Gondia being Application No. 205/06 on 27-11-06....

Kalina Bhaktha Samaj Vs. M.K. Pandey, Director of Income Tax (Exemptio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj703

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioners herein filed an application for approval by the first respondent under Section 85G(5) on 30th March, 1992. The first respondent by letter dated 23rd April, 1992 sought particulars as to the income and expenditure account which were furnished under the cover of letter dated 11-5-1992. The first respondent by his letter dated 14-5-1992 pointed out that according to him, the petitioner was carrying on religious activities which were considerable and that the funds kept for such activities were also relatively substantial. The first respondent thereafter relying on the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in C.I.T. v. Upper Ganges Sugar Co. Ltd. reported in : [1985]154ITR308(Cal) and considering the Explanation-3 below Section 80G(5A) of the Act, as it stood prima facie came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not eligible for certificate under Section 80G.The respondent No. 1, therefore, called upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the certific...

Bhagwanrao S/O. Vishwanath Vyawhare and anr. Vs. Sau. Sunita W/O. Gopi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR68; 2007(6)BomCR275; 2008(1)MhLj417

R.M. Savant, J.1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the petitioners should be permitted to conduct a fresh inquiry against the Respondent No. 1 in view of the fact that earlier inquiry was found to be defective as a consequence of which, the order imposing punishment of termination of service of Respondent No. 1 came to be set aside by the School Tribunal.3. The petitioners have filed the above petition impugning the order passed by the School Tribunal, Solapur dated 17-4-2007. By the said order, the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein being Appeal No. 8 of 2007 came to be allowed and the petitioners were directed to reinstate the Respondent No. 1 from the date of her termination i.e. 30-12-2006 and be paid 50 per cent of the back wages. The factual matrix involved in the above petition is stat...

Tatyaba Nivrutti More Vs. Rajashri Bapusaheb Chougule and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR145; 2008(3)BomCR365; [2008(116)FLR613]; 2008(1)MhLj98

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition challenges the order of the School Tribunal dated 18-9-1997. By this order, the School Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 and held that she was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages excluding the pay and allowances payable to her for the period from 16-7-1993 to 30-7-1994 as she was employed in another institute during this time. The petitioner has challenged this order as it has affected his rights as an assistant teacher.2. Respondent No. 3 appointed respondent No. 1 as an assistant teacher on a temporary basis from 19-6-1991 to 30-4-1993. Her services were determined by efflux of time. On 30-10-1991, the Education Officer granted approval to the appointment of respondent No. 1 for one year. On the expiry of one year, the services of respondent No. 1 ceased on 30-4-1992. An order was issued by respondent No. 3 appointing respondent No. 1 again on a temporary basis from 20-6-1992 to 30-4-1993....

Acc Machinery Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For the reasons recorded below, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 13,71,200/- and equal amount of penalty and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage with the consent of both sides.2. The demand arises as a result of holding that the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000 dated 1.3.2000 (Sr.No. 230 of the Table thereto) and sr.229 of the Table to Notification No. 03/2001 dated 1.3.2001 is not admissible to the appellants. The product in dispute is Bulker falling for classification under Chapter 8707 which is mounted on duty paid chassis and then removed. The benefit has been denied on the ground that the bulker was intermediate product which was required to be cleared on payment of duty and by clearance without payment of duty thereon the condition of the Notification in question was not fulfilled.3. We find that the appellants are claiming the benefit of sr No. 253 of the table to the Notification No. 6/2000 which covers all goods manufactured in a f...

Vijay C. Kamdar Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) on various grounds which are as under: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not holding that the reopening of the assessment by issuing of notice Under Section 148 of the Act was bad in law and illegal. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in disallowing the claim of the appellant for deduction Under Section 80 HHC of the Act amounting to Rs. 36,03,895/-. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding The disallowance of Rs. 35,61,826/- (incorrectly mentioned at Rs. 9,23,437/-) made by the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the total income of the appellant by Rs. 10,86000/- being the amount of duty drawback. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to delete the levy of interest Under Section 234B and 234C of the Act.2. During the course of hearing the learned Counsel for the a...

The Jam Shri Ranjitsinghji Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. and Shree Rata ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR2167; 2007(122)ECC267; 2007(148)LC267(Bombay); 2007(218)ELT516(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This Excise Appeal (wrongly numbered as First Appeal) was admitted on 29th June, 2006 on a substantial question of law which on being reframed by us reads as follows:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was justified in holding that the yarn manufactured and cleared by the appellant for captive consumption during the period from May, 1981 to May, 1984 under the self removal procedure was under provisional assessment as contemplated under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, even though there was no dispute about the classification or valuation of the yarn cleared for captive consumption?2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of cotton and manmade yarn as well as manufacture of fabrics covered under various tariff items of the Central Excise Tariff. Yarn manufactured by the appellants were either sold to the customers or were captively consumed in the manufacture of fabrics.3. It is not in dispute that the classificat...

Abbas Zoheb Lokhandwala Through His Mother and Natural Guardian, Mrs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR503; 2007(6)BomCR33; 2008(2)MhLj244

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Petitioners in this batch of Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, appeared for the Secondary and Higher Secondary Certificate Examination conducted by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education in March 2007. The Petitioners are 'repeater' candidates who appeared in the subjects of Science and Social Sciences in the Examinations. According to the Petitioners, the question papers set by the Board for Science and Social Sciences carried 100 marks each. However, when the results were declared on 26th June 2007, the Petitioners were shown to have failed in the subjects of Science and Social Sciences on the basis that the maximum marks allotted to the aforesaid heads were 150 each instead of 100 marks. The case of the Petitioners is that the minimum marks required for passing in each subject is 35% and the action of the Board in marking the students out of a total 150 marks is arbitrary when the students had, in fa...

Rama Steel Industries and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom38; 2007(6)ALLMR739; 2008(1)BomCR271; 2007(6)MhLj387

ORDERR.C. Chavan, J.1. The petitioners are the defaulting debtors of respondent No. 2-Bank. The petitioners had mortgaged immovable properties to respondent No. 2-Bank. Respondent No. 2 started proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for recovery of Rs. 47,69,648/-. On 14-7-2003, during the pendency of these proceedings. respondent No. 2-Bank issued a notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Securitisation Act'). On 18-9-2003, respondent No. 2-Bank took physical possession of the secured assets.2. The petitioners preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 4-10-2006. The petitioners appealed to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the Apex Court decided Greater Bombay Co-op. Bank Ltd...

Dinesh Deu Gawade Vs. Caprihans India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)MhLj615

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the matter is taken up for final hearing forthwith with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. Perused the plaint filed by the petitioner before the trial Court as well as the application for amendment and the impugned order.3. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent. On a report lodged by an officer of the respondent, the petitioner was arrested by the police on 20th July, 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 381 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code. He was in police custody upto 2nd August, 2002 and thereafter he was in jail. On 6-8-2002 he was released on bail from jail and since he was suffering from some ailments, he was directly taken to and admitted in a hospital. According to him, when he was in jail, a charge-sheet was issued by the respondent company and when he was still in hospital, the ex parte enquiry was concluded and he was dismissed from the ...