Mumbai Court September 2007 Judgments

Bimal Bhatt Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This Miscellaneous Application is preferred by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal dated 21-3-2007 with the submissions that while disposing off the appeal, the Tribunal has not considered the paper book filed by the assessee and the written submissions along with the affidavit of the assessee. Since the Tribunal has decided the appeal without appreciating the true facts of the case explained in the written submissions of the assessee, an error has crept in the order of the Tribunal and as such it requires rectification.2. The Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, has invited our attention that the Tribunal has examined the issue in the light of the material placed before it. Since the Tribunal has deliberated the impugned issue in its order in detail, it cannot be reviewed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act as the scope of this section is very limited and rectification is permissible only on arithmetical, clerical error and an error which is ap...

income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Mum.)938

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The cross-objection is filed by the assessee. The appeal and the cross-objection are directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XIX dt. 29th Sept., 2004. The appeal arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The only ground raised by the Revenue is that the CIT(A) has erred indirecting the AO to allow the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 37,98,219as against Rs. 24,60,546 calculated by the AO after considering thereport of District Valuation Officer.3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed the return of income declaring net taxable income at Rs. 86,75,610 which included long-term capital gain from sale of immovable property. During the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, the AO observed that the assessee has shown fair market value of property as in 1980-81 as Rs. 10,00,000 and indexed value in financial year 2000-01 at Rs. 40,60,000. The AO refe...

Atharva Institute of Management Studies and Vs. Directorate of Technic ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR191; 2007(6)BomCR283; 2008(2)MhLj476

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Second Petitioner which is a Public Trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, conducts and manages educational institutions including the First Petitioner. The Second Petitioner applied to the State Government for permission to establish a college for imparting a course of instruction leading up to the conferment of a post-graduate Degree in Management Studies. The State Government granted its permission on 31st October 2002 for the establishment of a College with a capacity of sixty students for imparting instruction towards the post graduate degree in management studies. The Director of Technical Education accordingly permitted the First Petitioner to start a college from 7th March 2003. The College was granted affiliation by the University of Mumbai on 11th April 2003 to commence a full t...

Bhagwant Kaur Sandhu and ors. Vs. Laxmi Education Society and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR270; 2007(6)BomCR416; 2008(2)MhLj309

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By this judgment we will dispose of the above two writ petitions being Writ Petition (Lodging) Nos. 1379 and 1569 of 2007 Public Interest Litigation No. 55 of 2007. 2. The teachers of Sheth L.U. Jhaveri and Sir M.V. College of Arts, Science and Commerce and Sir Chinai College of Commerce and Economics approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Writ Petition No. 1379 of 2007 praying that the closure notice dated 13th June 2007 (Exhibit A to the petition) issued by the management of the colleges be quashed and set aside and the management be directed to admit requisite number of students for Academic Year 2007-2008 onwards. It was further prayed that the respondents be directed to comply with the directions contained in the letter dated 27th June 2007 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, State of Maharashtra. Lastly they prayed for a direction for appointment of an independent managing committee to manage the affairs of both the...

Global Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated under the Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR599; 2007(4)ARBLR441(Bom); 2007(6)BomCR422; 2008(2)MhLj401

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Learned Single Judge has, by the order impugned in these proceedings, declined to grant an injunction on the invocation and encashment of certain Bank Guarantees. The application before the Learned Single Judge was made in a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Appellant and the First Respondent entered into a General Sales Agency Agreement on 28th January 2004 in pursuance whereof, the Appellant agreed to facilitate, promote and expand the business of the First Respondent and for that purpose to act as a General Sales Agent of the First Respondent on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. A Bank Guarantee was issued by the Second Respondent on 21st March 2003. The guarantee contained a recital of the fact that the First Respondent had agreed to extend to the Appellant, credit for the freight collected by the Appellant on behalf of the First Respondent to the extent of an amount of Rs. 1 crore pursuant to the GSA A...

Ananda Dnyandeo Shinde Vs. the Chairman, Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Vishwa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR602; 2008(2)MhLj562

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Petition challenges the order of the School Tribunal passed in Appeal No.188 of 1996. The School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner.2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a probationer on 5.6.1990 for a period of two years. Admittedly, at that stage, he was over the age of 28 years which is the maximum age stipulated in Rule 9(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules. This period of probation was continued by another letter of 9.6.1992 for a further period of two years. Subsequently, on 6.6.1994 by a resolution passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner was appointed as a graduate trainee teacher in Respondent No.1 school. Admittedly, the petitioner was not qualified with a Diploma in education (D.Ed.) but had a B.Ed degree. On 31.8.1994, a notice of termination of service was issued to the petitioner by the school contending that it had no option but to terminate his services since the appointment of the p...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Bhimabai Bhika Gondal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR215; 2008(1)BomCR219; (2007)109BOMLR2199

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. First Appeal No. 841 of 2005 has been preferred by the State against the judgment and award dated 30th September, 2000 passed by the Reference Court in LAR No. 88 of 1990 titled as Babu Rama Gandal v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 8. The State has filed Appeals in each of the references as the Reference Court had disposed of 24 References vide the impugned judgment. It needs to be noticed at the very outset that in the impugned judgment, the Reference court did not discuss and, in fact, the parties had also not led much evidence except mainly relying and tendering the judgment of another reference court, exhibit-33. The judgment passed by the Reference Court related to acquisition of lands under the same notification from the same village. The judgment relied upon was passed by the Reference Court in LAR No. 89 of 1990 decided on 7th February, 1998. In that case, number of sale instances were tendered in evidence and parties had also led oral evidence...

Al-can Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Co-op. Depa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR604; 2008(1)BomCR813; 2008(2)MhLj250

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Second Respondent was carrying on banking business in pursuance of a licence granted by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The licence was cancelled by the Reserve Bank on 17th March 2005. On 19th March 2005, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 110-A(ii) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies' Act, 1960, the Commissioner for Co-operation passed an order of winding up and appointed a Liquidator in respect of the affairs of the Bank. By the order of the Commissioner, Shri B.M. Jadhav, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, came to be appointed as Liquidator. Upon the retirement of Shri B.M. Jadhav, the Third Respondent, was appointed as Liquidator. 2. The Petitioners had obtained a loan from the Second Respondent. Recovery notices were issued by the Bank to which the reply of the Petitioners was that it was they who had suffered on account of the alleged non-disbursement of the loan which had been san...

Ms. Darakshan S.A. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR39; 2007(6)BomCR596; [2008(116)FLR256]; 2008(1)MhLj807

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Vide order dated 5th June 2007, the petitioner was transferred from Ismail Yusuf College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Jogeshwari, Mumbai to Elphinston College, Mumbai. Feeling aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the said order of transfer be quashed and set aside, with a further prayer that the report/resolution passed by the respondents in sexual harassment complaint be called for and direction may be issued to the respondents to take stringent action against two Professors i.e. Mr. S.K. Tripathi and Mr. B.B. Rajeshaikh. Further prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents be directed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : AIR1997SC3011 .3. The facts giving rise to th...

Shri. M. Sundareswaran Vs. the State of Maharashtra and

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR2192

V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Heard Mr. Kadam the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Satpute the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the proceedings relating to C.B.I. Special Case No. 46 of 1986 and 47 of 1986 in which he is facing prosecution. The said cases under Sections 420, 467, 471 read with Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are pending trial before the learned Special Judge for C.B.I. for Greater Mumbai.3. The petitioner had preferred applications for discharge in the above cases before the learned Special Judge. The said applications came to be rejected by order dated 2.5.2005. The applications were preferred only on the limited ground that no prior sanction was obtained for prosecution of the petitioner and hence on this count alone, the prosecution was illegal and proceedings relating to the same deserve to be quashed.4. Being aggrieved by the order dated ...