Mumbai Court September 2007 Judgments

State of Maharashtra Vs. Deoram Fakira Palmahale and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)MhLj556

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. All these Appeals are by the State whereby a common judgment dated 11-2-1994 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Nasik has been challenged.2. The operative part of the impugned judgment is as follows:1. The claimant in Land Reference No. 137 of 1988 for G. No. 17 at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- shall get Rs. 4,340/- for area of 31 ARE and after deducting amount which is already granted Rs. 2,924/- remaining amount of enhancement would come to Rs. 1,416.For G. No. 74 present enhanced rate would be Rs. 12,500/- per hectare and the value would be Rs. 7500/- for 60 ARE out of which already paid amount of Rs. 3900/- is deducted and enhancement would come to the tune of Rs. 3600/-.For G. No. 368 at the rate of Rs. 12,500/- for 8 Are land value would be Rs. 1000/- out of this, Rs. 520/- are granted and enhanced amount would be Rs. 480/-. Thus, claimed in L.R. No. 137 of 1988 would get total enhancement of Rs. 5496/-.2. In L. R. No. 138 of 1988 for G. No. 21 as per e...

Kishor Namdeorao Gathadi Vs. Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR297; 2008(1)BomCR284; 2008(2)MhLj52

Borkar P.R., J.1. Heard the advocates for the concerned parties. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.2. By this public interest litigation, the petitioner has originally challenged proposed felling of trees by respondent No. 1 at three sites and subsequently added respondent Nos. 3 to 6 challenging the validity of constitution of respondent No. 6, Tree Authority and also its decision dated 18.5.2007 permitting felling of trees and also challenging the agreements for development of two sites entered into between respondent No. 1 on one hand and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the other hand.3. The petitioners on 24.8.2007 categorically given up their case against respondent No. 5 Airport Authority of India and as such by order passed on that day, respondent No. 5 has been absolved of the entire liability which was imposed on it by virtue of status quo order passed in the petition and the said order was recalled. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary for us to consider the...

Dattatray Kashinath Patil and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR276; 2008(2)MhLj735

Kanade V.M., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 5-A, 5-B, 6-A and 6-C.2. By this petition, petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Konkan Division, Bombay who had directed that the possession in respect of the lands in question be restored in favour of Tribals under the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Schedule Tribes Act, 1974.3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as follows:3.1. Suit lands are situated at village Borigao, Taluka Dahanu, District Thane being Survey No. 30 and Survey No. 37, Hissa No. 2 admeasuring 2 acres and 6 gunthas and 3 acres and 2 gunthas respectively. It is an admitted position that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were ordinary tenants in the said land. Petitioner No. 3 was the landlord of the said lands. He terminated their tenancy in 1956 and filed a tenancy case against resp...

Bimal Singh Kothari Vs. State of Goa and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)MhLj841

N.A. Britto, J.1. Heard Learned Counsel on behalf of both parties.Admit. By consent, heard forthwith.2. In this petition, the petitioner who is an accused in C.C. No. 271/OA/05/B, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act, for short) assails the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji upholding the order of issuing process against him by the learned J.M.F.C. for the said offence.3. The complainant had prosecuted the accused with the allegation that the complainant had filed a Criminal Case bearing No. 200 of 2000 before the learned J.M.F.C. in Miraj in the State of Maharashtra against the accused and three others and the said case was settled thereafter and the accused along with the said three other persons had handed over six post-dated cheques in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- each pursuant to which the said complainant withdrew the said case and the cheque in question dated 31-12-2004 for Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn on ABN AMRO Bank, Mumbai,...

Nasik Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj Vs. Yeshwanth Ukha Borse and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR822; [2008(117)FLR453]; 2008(2)MhLj108

Mhatre Nishita, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of the School Tribunal dated 12.12.1994. By this order, the School Tribunal had directed the petitioner to reinstate the appellant i.e., respondent No. 1 herein, as a Headmaster and to give him all benefits attached to the post with backwages from 1.9.1992. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 was not employed in the school which the petitioner society took over and, therefore, there is no question of reinstating him in its service.2. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Headmaster of the school known as Indira Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Vasol i.e., respondent No. 3 herein. A resolution was passed to appoint him on a permanent basis from 17.9.1985. It appears that Sarva Dharma Samabhav Samaj Vikas Mandal, respondent No. 2 herein, was running the Indira Madhyamik Vidyalaya, respondent No. 3. After the confirmation of the first respondent's services with respondent No. 3 school, the petitioner took over respondent...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Essel Pro-pack Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the Revenue's appeals are being disposed off together as the issue involved is identical.Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Revenue has filed the present appeal. The dispute relates in availing service tax credit in respect of service tax paid on Goods Transport Agency Services. There is no dispute on the legal issue that the Respondents are entitled to take the said credit. However, Revenues objection was that the same has been availed on the basis of TR-6 Challan, which was not a prescribed document at the relevant time and was introduced in the list of specified documents only with effect from 16-6-2005 by Notification No. 28/2005-C.E. (N.T.) dated 7-6-2005.The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has held the said documents to be proper for the purpose of availing credit by observing as under: TR-6 challan is the most primary document evidencing payment of duty/tax. No doubt the TR-6 challan was not included in the list of specifie...

Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These cross appeals are preferred by the assessee as well as the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98. Since these appeals were heard together the same are being disposed off through this consolidated order. We, however, prefer to adjudicate these appeals one by one.2. Through this appeal, the assessee has assailed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds: 3. The first ground relates to disallowance of carry forward of unabsorbed investment allowance of the erstwhile A.K Structural Foam Ltd. (AKSF) on the ground that it can only be carry forward and set off for a period of 8 years from the assessment year for which it is related i.e. Assessment Year 1988-89 and the investment allowance cannot be carried forward for set off for assessment year 1997-98, even though the amalgamation of AKSF with the assessee was effective from 1-4-1991 i.e. relevant to assessment year 1992-93.4. The brief facts borne out fr...

Mrs. Safiyabanoo Mohammed Arif Rizvi Vs. the Union of India (Uoi),

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR2000

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner who is the mother of the detenu is challenging an order of detention dated 24th May, 1999 passed by the Joint Secretary of Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter stated as the 'said Act' for brevity sake), with a view to prevent the detenu Iqbal in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange. The order of detention was passed and the detenu was directed to be kept in the Central Prison, at Mumbai. Alongwith the said order detailed grounds were furnished to the detenu Iqbal.2. The learned Counsel Mr. Maqsood Khan, appearing on behalf of the detenu challenges the above detention order only on two grounds. Firstly, that the order was not justified from the materials placed before the detaining authority as the material do not disclose the activities to be prejudicial to the conservation of fo...

Akanksha International Through Its Proprietor Mrs. Anju Suryaprakash D ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR611; 2007(5)BomCR481; (2007)109BOMLR1959; 2008(1)MhLj753

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Proprietor of M/s Akanksha International, which has purchased the land, building, plant and machinery of M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Private Limited in auction sale conducted by the secured creditor under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Securitisation Act, 2002'), for direction to the respondent Electricity Distribution Company to consider application for fresh electricity connection to the petitioner and to quash and set aside the letter dated 1.6.2007 issued by the respondent to the petitioner as illegal. By the said letter the respondent has insisted on the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,30,78,926.87 plus interest which were arrears of electricity charges due from erstwhile consumer M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Private Limited.2. The petitioner stated that the State Bank of India, Jalna Branch had granted fi...

John Francis Anthony Gonsalves and Charles Willibroad Gonsalves Vs. Mr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom1; 2007(5)ALLMR863; 2007(5)BomCR490; (2007)109BOMLR2135; 2008(3)MhLj804

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The original plaintiffs/petitioners have by this appeal challenging the dismissal of their petition No. 519 of 1990 for probate of the will of their deceased father by the learned Single Judge as per the judgment dated 27th March, 2001.2. Admittedly, the petitioners are sons and the respondent/defendant is a married daughter of the deceased John Frederick Gonsalves, who died in Mumbai on 3rd January, 1983. Besides, the petitioners and respondent, the deceased John had also other sons and daughters. According to the petitioners, the deceased John executed the will and testament on 1-4-1979 whereby the petitioners are appointed as executors of his will. The petition for probate was filed in the year 1990. The respondent denied that any such will was executed by the deceased father and that the petitioners were appointed as executors. She also contended that even though the alleged will was executed on 1-4-1979, no steps were taken for getting it probated till the year 1...