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.
Sudam Mangu Patil Vs. Sindurni Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Va Ginning Press ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR153; 2008(3)BomCR309; 2008(3)MhLj854
ORDERA.H. Joshi, J.1. This is a petition by an employee of respondent No. 8 who was appointed as in-charge Managing Director.2. Petitioners appointment as Managing Director was challenged by one Shri Pramod Bhimrao More by filing Writ Petition No. 773/2004. He again filed one petition being Writ Petition No. 1774/2004 in which rule has been issued, however, interim relief has been refused.3. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 7 have filed a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, before Judge, Cooperative Court, Jalgaon, and prayed for various reliefs, main relief being as follows:(A) It be held and declared that the opponent No. 3 is not eligible for appointment to the post of General Manager and Acting Managing Director.(B) It be held and declared that the decision of promotion of the opponent No. 3 to the post of General Manager and Acting Managing Director, is contrary to law, contrary to notification, under Section 74 issued by Commissioner for C...
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Huf of H.H. Late Shri. J.M. ScIndia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1106; (2008)217CTR(Bom)531; [2008]300ITR193(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit on the question of law reproduced below.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in cancelling the assessment Under Section 16(3) r.w. Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, by holding that the notice under Section 16(2), being out of time ignoring the sections crucial feature of its applicability to the returns filed under Section 14, 15 or Under Section 16(4)(i) only and not to the one filed Under Section 17, as in the instant case2. The appeal is in respect of the assessment year 1989-90. It is the contention of the Revenue that the reassessment proceedings under Section 17 are entirely different from the regular assessment proceedings. The notice under Section 16(2) is necessarily and compulsorily to be issued only in a regular assessment. In the instant case, it is submitted that on notice dated 19.8.1997 being issued under Section 17, the assessee had filed return of wealth on 14.10.1997. The assessme...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandrabhagabai W/O Wamanrao Waybhase ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1637; 2008(3)MhLj883
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.P. Bafna, for the petitioner.2. The petitioner herein is an Insurance Company which has suffered an award of no-fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.The Insurance Company preferred an appeal bearing First Appeal No. 127/1999.3. During pendency of the appeal, the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal passed an award on 8-12-2000 and held the Driver and owner of the vehicle responsible for payment of compensation, and exonerated the present appellant Insurance Company from any liability, whatsoever.4. The fact that the Insurance Company has been exonerated was mentioned before this Court at the admission hearing of First Appeal No. 127/1999. In view of contents of un-numbered para 3 of the judgment, it can be inferred that leave for withdrawal of appeal was granted for enabling the insurance company to file an application for review.5. Upon withdrawal of said appeal, the appellant herein filed a review application bearin...
Ashok R. Palande Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan Committee and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR180; 2008(3)BomCR328
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an Order dated 5.8.2006 which has been passed by the learned District Judge, Pune.2. The petitioner before me had filed a Writ Petition No. 549 of 2006 and the challenge therein was to an order passed by the District Judge, Pune on 16.7.2005.3. The said writ petition was disposed off on 7.4.2006 by following order and directions:(a) the impugned order dated 16th July, 2003 is set aside;(b) Learned District Judge to take steps to appoint trustees and for that purpose, he shall take into consideration the list of 24 persons forwarded by trustees vide communication dated 22nd June, 2004.(c) If the learned Judge is of the view that the ratio of five names per each vacancy which is required to be maintained, cannot be maintained, as the persons whose names are included in the list of 24 are otherwise ineligible, then, it will be open for him to call for fresh names/ap...
Shardul Securities Ltd. Formerly Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: (2008)117TTJ(Mum.)614
1. The only issue arising in this appeal is whether the assessee is liable to pay interest tax under the provisions of Interest Tax Act, 1974 (the Act).2. Briefly stated the facts are that assessee is an investment company and is considered as Non-Banking Finance Company as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India (RBI). No return was filed by the assessee under the provisions of the Act since in its view, the assessee could not be considered as a credit institution within the ambit of definition Clause (5A) of Section 2 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee was liable to pay interest tax under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and consequently, issued notice Under Section 10 of the Act directing the assessee to file the return of chargeable interest for the year under consideration. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its return declaring chargeable interest at Nil. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company wa...
Digambar S/O Sambaji Pued Through G.P.A. Dasrao S/O Uttamrao Hambarde ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR801; 2008(2)BomCR517; 2008(3)MhLj256
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. At the stage of admission hearing, by an order dated 17th October, 2007 the notice was issued to the respondents for final disposal of petition at the admission stage.2. The issue raised by the petitioner is whether provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.') are applicable to the proceedings of reference under Section 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') by the Collector.3. The learned Counsel Mr. Khader for the petitioner has placed reliance on reported judgments viz. (1) Smt. Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar : [1996]3SCR303 , (2) Ragjimatj v. Panditt Ramchandra : 2000(1)BomCR129 and has also referred to an unreported judgment delivered by this Court (Coram : S.B. Deshmukh, J.) dated 27th September, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 5468 of 2007 decided along with other group matters. 4. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated by Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquis...
Petroleum India International Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: IV(2008)BC259; 2008(2)BomCR674; 2008(1)CTLJ184(Bom); 2008(6)MhLj487
ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. This notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiff to claim following relief:(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit, the defendant No. 1 by itself, its servants and agents be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from making any payments to Defendant No. 2 or any other person/persons under the said Bank Guarantee dated 25th February, 2006 annexed as Exh.Q to the plaint.The Factual Backdrop:2. The factual backdrop brought on record by the plaintiff is that after having entered into contract with the defendant No. 3, the plaintiff, who is a customer of the defendant No. 1-bank, vide its letter dated 15th February, 2006 requested its banker-(defendant No. 1) to issue bank guarantee in favour of the defendant No. 3 ('M/s Abaja Contracting Est. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia') through defendant No. 2 ('The Saudi British Bank') as the plaintiff was awarded contract dismentaling of the refinery at Riyadh by defendant No. 3 and fo...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pamwi Tissues Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Bom)150; [2009]313ITR137(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Revenue has preferred the Appeal on the following question:The substantial question of law which arises in the present appeal is regarding the correct interpretation of Section 43-B, 2(24)(X) r/w. Section 36(1)(Va) and as to the claim of deductions as claimed by the assessee in respect of the PF, EPF and ESIC contributions especially in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law.We are concerned with the Assessment Year 1990-91. In respect of the very issue this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 256 of 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Godaveri (Mannar) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., decided on 8th October, 2007 held that in so far as Provident Fund dues the amendment is made applicable from the assessment year 2004-05. The Section as it stood earlier was that the employees contribution to P.F. if not paid within the due date the employee was not entitled to deduction. Considering the said judgment and the finding the Appeal will have to be allowed. 2. ...
Modi Dyeing and Bleaching Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC208
1. The appellant in this case is an independent processor who was availing deemed credit for manufacture of man made fabrics under Notification No. 06/2002 C.E (NT) dated 01.03.2002. As per provisions of Notification the deemed credit could be utilized for payment of duty on the final product cleared for home consumption or for export on payment of duty and where for any reason, such adjustment is not possible by refund to the manufacturer of the unutilized amount of the credit. The appellant in this case was exporting their final product under bond and therefore had accumulated deemed credit amounting to Rs. 78,703/- on 31st March 2003 which could not be utilized by him. This amount was utilized by them for clearance of fabrics for home consumption on payment of duty after 31.3.2003. They were however issued a show cause notice stating that since Notification 06/2002 was effective upto 31.3.2003, they could not have utilized the credit after 31.3.2003. The matter was adjudicated by t...
Kay Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: (2008)(128)ECC113
1. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of intimation received, the Central Excise Officers checked the records of M/s.Krishna Weigh Bridge Satara and raided the factory of the appellants herein and found that the transactions of clearance of M.S. Scrap when compared with the weigh bridge records with records maintained by the appellants vary. Clandestine removal of scrap by adopting two types of modus operandi was noticed - one, paying central excise duty on less quantity shown in the invoice and not shown in the weighment register, two, clearance of goods without payment of duty for which returnable gate passes have been issued by them.2. Duty demand was raised by issue of show cause notice which also proposed imposition of penalty; notice was adjudicated by the Addl.Collector who confirmed demand of Rs. 8,23,809/- together with interest, confiscated seized goods with option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 3,998/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 6,03,646/- for the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »