Mumbai Court September 2007 Judgments

Ramrao S/O Pralhadrao Deshmukh (Dead) Through Lrs. Godavari W/O Ramrao ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR234; 2008(2)MhLj534

R.M. Borde, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2. The petitioner in this petition is raising challenge to the acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent-State for the purpose of acquisition of land belonging to the petitioner, situate at village Kahala (Bk), Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. The purpose for the acquisition of land is stated to be extension of Gaothan. The acquisition proceedings are culminated in passing an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), on 26-11-1993.3. Certain dates which are material for considering the objections raised in this petition by the petitioner are required to be recorded as below:4. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 12-7-1990. So far as the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is concerned, the same was made on 12-11-1990. The same was published in the Government Gazette on 1-8-1991. It further transpires from the record that it wa...

Babasaheb Thombre Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2935

S.P. Kukday, J.1. The appellant is found guilty of committing murder of his wife Sanjivani on 20th April 2004, by Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon. He is convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. This order of conviction and sentence dated 31st August 2005 is impugned in the present appeal.2. Appellant married Sanjiwani (deceased) in the year 1987. Vijay (aged 18 years), Ashwini (aged 14 years) and Vinod (aged 11 years) were born within the wedlock. The appellant was serving in Police Department and was living in Police Colony at Jalna. He was addicted to liquor and was in the habit of assaulting his wife and suspecting her chastity. On 19th April 2004, appellant stopped at the parental house of the Sanjivani at Chinchwan with his wife and children on route to his native place Wadmawali Dahiphal. Sanjivani had spoken of her visit to her sister Ashrabai (P.W. 2) on telephone from Jalna; th...

Aparna Arvind Ambekar Vs. Secretary, B.P.T. Hammallage Co-operative Ca ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)ILLJ743Bom; 2008(1)MhLj445

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition challenges the order of the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 983 of 1989. The Labour Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 20,520/- to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement in service. The Labour Court has held that the termination of services of the workman from 22-7-1988 is illegal and unjustified.2. The petitioner joined service with the 1st respondent as a 'Bhakarwali' (Chapati Maker). She worked there till her services were terminated on 22-7-1988. The petitioner called upon the 1st respondent to reinstate her in service with continuity and full back wages by a demand served on the respondent No. 1 on 22-2-1989. Since the 1st respondent did not accede to the demand, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and obtained a reference from Government for adjudication of this dispute before the Labour Court.3. The petitioner filed her statement of claim contending that she was appointed as a 'Bhakarwali' (Chapati Maker) on 1-7-1987 on a monthly...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sski Investors Services (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Mum.)511

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. The appeal is directed against the order of CIT(A)-IV at Mumbai dt. 25th Feb., 2004 and arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The only ground raised in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in directing that the loss of Rs. 8,24,568 on account of derivative trading cannot be treated as speculation loss and failed to appreciate that though the transactions were made on demonstrative transaction is nonetheless speculative.3. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) found that the loss was incurred on account of derivative trading in assessee's own account. The CIT(A) held that derivative segments are all future trades but strictly speaking by definition of speculative transaction, there has to be purchase or sale of any commodity including stock and shares. As derivative trading does not involve any purchase and sale of shares, the loss on account of derivative cannot be t...

Midas Care Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR171

1. This stay application is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.RKR(77)229/07 Dt. 24.04.2007.2. Since the issue involved in this case is in a narrow compass, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the amount involved and take up the itself for final disposal.3. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that they made a detailed submission as to the non-taxability of the services under category of 'Technical Testing & Analysis". It is his submission that the liability of payment of service tax arise only on receipt of the payment. He submits that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has only picked up alternate submission and disallowed their appeal without giving any findings on the main submissions made by the appellant, on non-taxability of the services under category of Technical Testing & Analysis. He submits that the impugned order be set aside and the matter may be remanded to Ld. Commissioner to give detailed finding on merits, Ld. DR leaves it to the Bench....

Sunshield Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR174

1. This stay application is directed against the order-in-original No.01R/MS(01R) kCOMMR/RGD/06-07 dt. 9.5.07.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is whether the Services provided by the applicant gets covered under the category of "Management Consultancy" Services. The adjudicating authority vide his order-in-original dt. 13.5.2005 came to the conclusion that the said services would not fall under the category of "Management Consultant" the Ld.Commissioner in exercise of powers vested Under Section 84 of The Finance Act, 1994, reviewed, the order of Assistant Commissioner and vide order-in-original dt. 9.5.2007 came to a conclusion that applicant/appellant has provided the services of ''Management Consultant". On perusal of the records it is seen that the applicants has categorically made submissions before the lower authorities that the activities undertaken by them for their Joint Venture Partners are not advice b...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Manubhai Sons and Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal filed by the department is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the following ground: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in exercise of powers specified under Section 147 of the Act and consequent order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 is not valid in a case where the assessee has wilfully tried to create a bogus expenditure by way of interest payment and where the assessment was reopened after due approval from the Commissioner, Central II, Mumbai.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the original return of income was filed on 30-10-1996 declaring loss of Rs. 10,56,720, which was accepted by the assessing officer in the original assessment order passed by him under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 26-2-1999. The assessing officer subsequently issued a notice under Sec...

Bhima Aba Rade (Since Deceased Through His Lrs. Rakhamabai Bhima Rade ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR185; 2007(6)BomCR408; (2007)109BOMLR2431; 2008(1)MhLj192

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This is Second Appeal of original defendant No. 1 against judgment of First Appellate Court whereby partition decree is granted against him.2. The subject matter of dispute is agricultural land which originally bore survey No. 721/1. It is now consolidated and re-numbered as Gat No. 1613, admeasuring 8 Hectare 35 R, situated at Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar.3. There is no dispute about the fact that the suit land was owned by one Dinkar Govind Deshpande. There is also no dispute about the fact that father of deceased appellant, namely, Abu @ Aba Rama Rade was a protected tenant in possession of the suit land in 1947-48. He died somewhere in 1950. There is no dispute about the fact that certificate under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, was issued in the appellant's name and he was recognized as statutory owner of the suit land.4. The following pedigree table would depict relations between the parties.Abu @ Aba Rama Rade - Reubai (d...

Mr. Narayan Yeshwant Pednekar and ors. Vs. Mr. Sabaji Vishram Chamanka ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR120; 2008(2)BomCR309; (2007)109BOMLR2356; 2008(2)MhLj318

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10th January, 2005 passed by the District Judge, Sindhudurg in Regular Civil Appeal No. 123 of 1987, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16/10/1987 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 21 of 1983 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vengurla and allowing the cross objection filed by the respondent, preferred this appeal on questions of law and various other grounds.2. The appellants and respondent to 5 are original defendants in regular Civil Suit No. 21 of 1983 filed by, respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the heirs of original plaintiff, who died during the pendency of proceedings. The said suit was filed for a declaration that original plaintiff/respondent 1 to 5 are the owners and are in possession of the suit lands and are cultivating the same and the appellants/defendants be restrained from interfering with their possession.3. In the year 1984, the appellants/defendants filed their say-cum-written statement...

Crown Maritime Co. (i) Ltd. Vs. Barge Salina Ii and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR143

Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. The defendants have filed this notice of motion seeking the following reliefs:(a) That the order dated 3rd September, 2007 be vacated and/or set aside;(b) The plaintiff be directed to deposit in this Hon'ble Court or furnish security in the sum of Rs. 2,80,000.00 being the losses or damages suffered by the defendants due to order dated 3rd September, 2007.(c) Ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b) above;2. Plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the above Admiralty Suit and the relief claimed therein is that the first defendant vessel be arrested by a Warrant of Arrest of this Court and, thereafter, the same be sold through Sheriff of Mumbai by orders and directions of this Court so also the sale proceeds be appropriated to the satisfaction of plaintiffs claim in the suit. The decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally in the sum of Rs. 98,23,397 has been claimed. The plaint is lodged in this Court on...