Mumbai Court September 2007 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ravi Prakash Arora

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]87SCL142(Bom)

1. A revision application was preferred by the appellants before the Tribunal after a period of 4 years and 5 months. Section 96 (sic) of the FEMA Act confer powers on the Tribunal to examine legality, propriety and correctness of an order under Section 16.2. No period of limitation has been set out in Section 96 (sic). Courts in such matters have interpreted such provisions to mean that it should be a reasonable period. In the instant case, the Tribunal was right in holding that period of 4 years and 5 months would not be a reasonable period within which it will entertain the revision application.3. Considering the same, question of law as framed would not arise. The appeal is dismissed....

Shri Rajendra C. Singh Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are by the assessee and the revenue, pertaining to block period 01.04.1987 to 15.11.1997.2. IT (SS) A No. 225/Mum/2001: Assessee originally had taken eight grounds of appeal. Thereafter assessee filed the redrafted grounds of appeal, which read as under: 1. holding that the block assessment order was not barred by time. He should have held that since the recourse to Section 142(2A) was not valid, the block assessment order was barred by time. 2. not accepting the opening balance of Rs. 4,50,000/- which had been received by the appellant in 1982 as compensation for vacating the tenanted premises. 3. without prejudice to Ground No. 2 above, confirming the addition of Rs. 1,90,000/- in respect of opening balance, which had been invested prior to the commencement of the block period. 4. confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- in respect of gifts received by the appellant from various relatives. 5. confirming the addition of Rs. 1,10,000/- on account of alleged low withd...

Karishma Ramesh Pandey Vs. University of Mumbai a Statutory Authority ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR606; 2008(1)BomCR169; 2008(1)MhLj925

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Petitioner is a student of the Second Year of the B.Com. degree course at the Third Respondent - M.L. Dhanukar College of Commerce which is managed and conducted by the Second Respondent. The issue before the Court in these proceedings relates to the validity of a decision taken by the authorities in the college to declare the performance of the Petitioner for the second term examination held in March 2007 as null and void. Consequent thereupon the Petitioner has been permitted to appear for the Second Year B.Com. examination to be held in October, 2007 or thereafter.2. On 5th March, 2007 the Petitioner appeared for the examination in the subject of Economics - II. A Junior Supervisor found that the Petitioner was copying from written material which had been written on her desk. Upon being confronted by the Junior Supervisor the Petitioner, it is alleged sought to strike out some of the answers written by her in the answer book in such a manner that decipheri...

Uday Bojraj Toney Vs. Akkalkot Education Society,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR721; [2007(115)FLR921]; 2008(2)MhLj473

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Appellant was appointed as a teacher for physical education by the Respondents between 4th July, 1988 and 22nd April, 1989 on a clock hour basis. The case of the Appellant is that he continued to work during the period between 1st July, 1989 and 22nd April, 1990. During the period 26th June, 1990 and 19th June, 1991 the Appellant claims to have been engaged as a part time employee. Thereafter for the period between 20th June, 1991 and 19th June, 1992 he was stated to be recognized as a full time employee - a capacity on which the Appellant claims to have worked between 1st August, 1992 till 20th June, 1993 and 21st June, 1993 until 17th September, 1993. The Appellant at the material time held the B.A. and BP Ed. qualifications. On 18th September, 1993 the services of the Appellant were stated to have been orally terminated. The case of the Appellant is that in 1991 he had contested municipal elections in which he defeated the chairman of the management of the...

Vasanta S/O Shrawan Gajbhiye Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Pso

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR2214

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant is challenging the judgment dated 29.12.2004 delivered by the 6th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 346 of 2001, whereby the said Court has found him guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for life as also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default to suffer R.I. for six months. He has also been found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-or in default to suffer R.I. for three months. The substantive sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 5.4.2001 at his house at Adam, the appellant committed murder of his wife deceased Seema. He also used to subject her to mental as well as physical cruelty falling under Section 498-A of...

Navnit M. Ruparelia and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumb ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR60

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Petitioners claim to be the co-owners of land bearing CTS No. 599 situated at Borivli. Among the structures situated thereon were six shops. Two shops were in the occupation of tenants viz. Respondents 5 and 6. On 28th March, 2005, five notices were issued by the Municipal Corporation to the Petitioners informing them that the shop/structure covered by each notice was affected by the 18.30 mtr. wide regular line of road viz. Lokmanya Tilak Road at Borivli (West). The notice called upon the First Petitioner to produce documents in relation to the authenticity of the structures. By a letter dated 2nd April, 2005, the First Petitioner expressed his readiness to handover possession of three out of the five shops affected by the road line stating that this covered more than 75% of the total area affected. Insofar as the remaining two shops were concerned, the First Petitioner stated that they were in the occupation of tenants and hence, the Municipal Corporation w...

Shankara N. Shetty and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR719; 2008(1)BomCR820; 2008(1)MhLj740

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Petitioners have moved these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking reliefs to the effect that (i) a writ of mandamus be issued to the Respondents to 'strictly adhere to the development plan and/or consider the existing divider as the center of the Andheri - Ghatkopar Link Road as regular line for widening the said road'; (ii) an order of restraint be issued against the Respondents from demolishing or removing any part of the commercial structures occupied by the Petitioners as part of the plan for the widening of the Andheri - Ghatkopar Link Road, till the original development plan is implemented and/or the existing divider is considered as the center of the road as regular line for such development. 2. The Respondents to these proceedings are respectively the State of Maharashtra, the Chief Executive Officer of the MMRDA and the Municipal Corporation. MMRDA is a nodal agency entrusted with the implementation of road widening projects of t...

Sudhakar Chindbhaji Deshbratar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)MhLj61

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Smt. B.H. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader, waives service for respondents No. 1 to 3. Service on respondents No. 4 and 5 is dispensed with. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.The petitioner is before this Court, since his nomination paper has been rejected by assigning the reason that he has failed to furnish the acknowledgment of having furnished an application for scrutiny of his caste claim prior to 22-9-2007.2. We had issued notice before admission on 26-9-2007 and called upon the learned Additional Government Pleader to verify two things as under:(1) Whether the petitioner had furnished necessary information for caste scrutiny as required by law, and(2) Whether its acknowledgment was produced along with nomination paper.3. The learned Additional Government Pleader has answered both the above queries as follows:(1) The application for forwarding the caste claim of the petitioner was furnished to the Tahsildar. However, he was un...

Shringar Cinemas Ltd. Vs. Bharat Bala Productions Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR312; 2008(3)MhLj564; 2008(38)PTC636(Bom)

Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. By consent, the Notice of Motion is being finally disposed of by this order.Briefly stated, the plaintiffs have approached this Court for relief of damages and injunction on account of infringement of copy rights of the plaintiffs as also on account of violation of contractual obligations by the defendant No. 1.2. It is not in dispute that the defendant No. 1 is the producer/ first copy right owner of two films namely 'Jana Gana Mana (Vocal)' and 'Jana Gana Mana (Instrumental)'.3. By an agreement dated 5th June, 2006 the defendant No. 1 granted 'exclusive license' in respect of the theatrical rights in the said work to the plaintiffs so as to enable the plaintiffs to exploit the rights across the theatres (whether Fame Cinemas or any other theatres belonging to any other brand/entity) in the territory of Republic of India for a term of five years from the date of execution of the said agreement on terms and conditions referred to in the said agreement.4. It is not...

Girija Pandey Vs. Surya Educational Society and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj94

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of the School Tribunal dated 18-12-1996. By this order, the School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal both on the grounds of limitation and on merits.2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the primary section of the school but no appointment order was issued to her. The petitioner claims that her services were terminated on 15-6-1992 orally by the respondents. An appeal was filed by her on 17-7-1992 contending that her services had been illegally terminated by the respondents. In her appeal, the petitioner had stated that she was appointed to the school on a clear permanent vacancy. She has stated that she was paid a salary of Rs. 300/- per month. According to the petitioner, she was suffering from jaundice from 14-12-1991. She had submitted medical certificates on 31-1-1992, 5-3-1992 by registered A.D. which were received by the management. A fitness certificate was submitted on 21-5-19...