Mumbai Court February 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mrs. Mary Rama Rao Alias Darala Mary, Nurse/Ex. Assistant Matron of Ip ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR227]; 2008(3)MhLj328
N.A. BRITTO, J.1. Heard. The Petitioner, who was appointed as a staff nurse on 30/01/1973, and promoted as Assistant Matron on 29/08/2003 retired voluntarily w.e.f. 11/06/2004, during the pendency of this petition, as per the Government Scheme for voluntary retirement, circulated vide circular dated 16/02/2004. In this petition, the Petitioner has sought various reliefs, many of which are irrelevant and redundant.2. The petition was amended from time to time. On 30/10/2001, on a statement made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were deleted, the former having retired from service and the latter having expired. Subsequently, the Petitioner joined Respondent No. 7 who was promoted subsequent to the Petitioner as Assistant Matron on 16/06/2004 and became a Matron from 4/08/2006. Apart from the fact that Respondent No. 7 has not been served in this petition, by the Petitioner, the Petitioner can have no grievance against her promot...
Plaza Diamond Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Bom)95; [2008]301ITR201(Bom)
R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is a petition filed by Plaza Diamond Properties (P) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') seeking to quash and set aside an auction notice dt. 3rd Sept., 2007 published by the Chief CIT-II in the 'Times of India' dt. 10th Sept., 2007. By the impugned notice the IT Department seeks inter alia to sell an immovable property located at 391, Dr. D.B. Marg, Mumbai-400004. The petitioner claims to be the company which owns the aforesaid property consisting of a cinema hall on the ground floor and mezzanine floor and a balcony with a screen and projector room above the mezzanine floor, in the building known as 'Swastik Cinema Building' together with land underneath admeasuring about 821.74 sq. mtrs., being C.S. No. 1266 in Girgaum division. This property in respect of which the petitioner claims to be the owner is more particularly described in Exh. A to the petition and is hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'.2. The chronology of the facts which ...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Hotel Ornate (Nilgiri) P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Bom)458; [2009]309ITR81(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. These appeals arise from a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92 whereby the appeals preferred by the Revenue were dismissed. In the present appeals the following two questions according to the Revenue would arise:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the hon'ble Tribunal erred in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,56,00,000 to the net wealth of the assessee being the value of the under construction property at Ooty ?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the hon'ble Tribunal erred in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and deleting the addition of Rs. 26,04,413 to the net wealth of the assessee being the value of the secured debts?2. Admit.3. In so far as question (b) is concerned, we find that after making additions in the sum of Rs. 26...
Jcit, Special Range 47 Vs. Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)304ITR85(Mum.)
1. Most of the issues involved in the present bunch of appeals filed by the Department and the memoranda of cross-objections filed by the assessee are common. We therefore find it convenient to dispose off all of them together by a consolidated order.2. We shall first take up the Department's appeal for AY 1995-96 as the learned CIT(A) has passed speaking order for the said assessment year which he has followed in other years. 1. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to allow deduction of Rs. 65,76,300/- Under Section 801 of the I.T. Act in respect of Undertaking II and Rs. 55,17,158/- Under Section 80-IA of the I.T. Act in respect of Undertaking III. (ii) Without prejudice to the above and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the A.O. has erred in denying the deduction Under Section 80-I/80-IA to the assessee and further erred in holding that th...
Krishna Lifestyle Technologies Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR456; 2008BusLR314(Bom); 2008(125)ECC208; 2008(151)LC208(Bombay); 2008(229)ELT173(Bom); 2009[16]STR669
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent of the parties heard forthwith.2. Respondent No. 4 is a secured creditor of certain immovable and movable assets of M/s. Rotex Textile Mills Ltd. now in liquidation, having advanced money to M/s. Rotex Textile Mills Ltd. As there was a default in payment of the dues, Respondent No. 5 issued a public notice on 8th February, 2007, inviting bids for the immovable and movable assets secured in its favour as set out in the public notice. At the auction held on 10th March, 2007, Petitioner was declared as the highest bidder. Consequent thereto, Petitioner made full and final payment of the said consideration on 22nd March, 2007 and requested Respondent No. 4 to release the possession letter for the land and building, plant and machinery and the relevant original documents. Respondent No 5 as the Asset Recovery Management Services of Respondent No. 4 issued sale certificate for the immovable property and also sale certificate for the movables.3. Respondent ...
Santosh S/O Laxman Jadhav and Shankar S/O Narsimlu Komar Vs. the State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1861
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2005 whereby appellants are convicted for offences punishable under Section 394 read with Section 392 and 34 of the I.P. Code and Section 457 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code. Appellant No. 1 Santosh is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months, for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 392 and 34 of the I.P. Code. He is further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years for offence punishable under Section 457 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code. Appellant No. 2 Shankar is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months for offence punishable under Sect...
Manik S/O Shankarrao Dhotre, Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1505
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This Revision Application is directed against judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 74/2004. By the impugned judgment, learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the order of conviction and sentence rendered by IVth Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 70/2004. Thereby the applicants have been convicted for offence punishable Under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. The applicants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have been further convicted for offences punishable Under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month each.2. Originally 5 (five) accused were charge-sheeted ...
The Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs ... Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR802; 2008(2)ARBLR175(Bom); 2008(2)BomCR526; 2008(3)MhLj635
F.I. Rebello, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 25.1.2005 in Arbitration Petition No. 499 of 2003 deciding a preliminary objection. The appellants before this Court by that Petition had challenged the award dated 30.6.2003.2. A preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the petition on behalf of the Respondents. The preliminary objection was that considering the provisions of Section 7 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Interest Act') more specifically Section 7, the petition as filed being an appeal against an award cannot be entertained unless the Appellant deposits, 75% of the amount in terms of the award in the manner directed by the court or as the case may be by such authority. The appellants contended that the petition challenging the award is not an appeal against the award nor is it a decree and consequent...
Aslambeg S/O Rahimbeg Mirza Vs. Ganpatrao S/O Jagannathdas Hedaoo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR774; 2008(3)MhLj315
Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. By this revision, the applicant challenges the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, on 20/1/2004, in Regular Darkhast No. 256/1982, permitting an amendment to the plaint as also the decree passed in favour of the non-applicant.2. Few facts giving rise to the controversy involved in the revision application, are stated thus-The applicant is the original defendant No. 3. The non- applicant had filed a suit against the applicant and two others for possession and mesne profits. According to the plaintiff/nonapplicant, he was the owner of Shop Block No. 32 in House No. 44/30, Gandhibagh, Nagpur, which admeasured 13' X 15'. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that on 21/10/1976, the plaintiff found that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had trespassed on half of the said premises and they had opened a shop for running a hotel, cycle hiring and panthela. The plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises, but the defendants refused ...
The Poona Herald Pvt. Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companies ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR324; 2008(4)MhLj730
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.2. Perused the judgments rendered by the Courts below and the relevant documents.3. To state in brief, the present applicants are the original defendants. One Vinod Motee was original landlord. He had initially given suit premises to the defendants on leave and licence basis. In January, 2003 tenancy agreement took place and the mezzanine floor of the premises was vacated by the defendants and taken over by the landlord for his own business of the furniture. The ground floor premises admeasuring 2500 sq.ft. were let out to the defendants for running business of printing press where newspapers, namely Maharashtra Herald and the Poona Herald were printed and published. In May, 2003 original landlord Vinod Motee entered into partnership agreement and partnership deed was executed and registered on 4th May, 2003. In the partnership firm landlord Vinod Motee and his married daughter Namrata Bapat were partners alongwith two others ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »