Mumbai Court February 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Manaksia Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order-in-appeal No.SVS/320/NGP-ICD/2007 dated 20.9.2007 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original and directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the refund application filed by the respondent.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondent herein imported seven consignments of aluminium ingots and filed bills of entry. The said bills of entry were assessed by the Customs officers as per the declarations filed by the respondents and respondents were directed to pay the amount of duty assessed and education cess thereon. The respondents discharged the duty liability and cleared the consignments. Subsequently the respondents noticed that they had not availed the benefit of Notification No. 43/02 dated 19.4.02 which exempts the payment of the whole of the customs duty leviable thereon and other additional duty, filed refund claims with the authorities. Show cause notice was iss...

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Govardhani Con ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR278; 2008(4)ARBLR42(Bom); 2008(5)BomCR500

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Being aggrieved by an order Arbitration Petition, passed by the dated 20.09.2006 and confirming 7.12.2005 passed by the learned of disputes between the parties of Runaway of WEB at Yavatmal, the Appellant (original Petitioner) has filed this Appeal. Appellant (Org.Petitioner) Respondent (Org.Respondent) of rejection of the learned Single Judge the Award dated Arbitrator in the matter regarding construction2. On 27.10.1993 the Appellant (Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., for short, 'MIDC') floated tender for Construction of Air Strip of 1372 meters x 30.5 meters at Yavatmal. The estimated cost of the same was Rs. 1,59,26,027/- and time for completion of the work was 11 months.3. On 21.12.1993 the Appellant by letter addressed to the Respondent accepted the Respondent's tender and allotted said work to Respondent. The letter also required the Respondent to provide to Appellant bank guarantee in sum of Rs. 3,18,600/-.4. Thereafter the Respondent and...

Rajkumar S/O Pundlikrao Zape and ors. Vs. Shantaram Amrutrao Waghmare,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR747; 2008(6)BomCR81; 2008(3)MhLj209

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of parties. 2. This second appeal is at the instance of objectors before Assistant Charity Commissioner. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows There is a trust known as Bhagaji Maharaj Sansthan at Ruikhed, Tq.Akola, Distt.Akola. On 5/7/2001, an application under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act was submitted by Shantaram and others requesting the Assistant Charity Commissioner to effect the change. It was mentioned in the said application that a meeting of trustees was held on 11/11/1981 in which one Nilkanth Zape, Bhiku Gawande and Shantaram Waghmare were elected as trustees. A request was also made to delete the name of one Champabai, who had expired on 14/9/1996. Along with this application, another application was made. In the said application, it was stated that applicant Shantaram and others did not know that a change is required to be reported to the Charity Commissioner and therefore, they could not...

Dattatraya Krishnaji Asalekar Vs. Shri Shravana Dhonu More (Since Dece ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR237; 2008(4)BomCR684; (2008)110BOMLR776; 2008(3)MhLj785

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. This Revision Application is filed by the original applicant against the dismissal of the application for eviction and possession under Section 13A(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Rent Act')2. The respondent is a tenant in the suit premises, which is part of House No. 272, situated at Raviwar Peth, Phaltan, District Satara. According to the applicant, the house is his ancestral property. The respondent was inducted as a tenant in the same. The applicant was in service of the Indian Armed Forces and he retired from the service of Army on 1.8.1987 and he started a shop in a small place at Phaltan. Taking into consideration the size of his family, the accommodation in his possession was too small for his business and residence. Therefore, the applicant bonafide required the disputed premises for occupation of the respondents residence as well as business. A notice dated 3.11.1987 was served t...

Nanaji Gajanan Upaganlawar Vs. Shabbir HusaIn Fida Hussain

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR793; 2008(6)BomCR324; 2008(4)MhLj66

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. 3. Plaintiff is the owner of building situated at Mahatma Gandhi Road Ekori at Chandrapur. The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and was using the said premises as godown. The rent was Rs. 55/-per month. The tenancy was monthly commencing from 14th day of each English Calender month. The defendant was irregular in payment of rent. The plaintiff, therefore applied to the Rent Controller for grant of permission to determine the tenancy of the defendant. The Rent Controller granted the permission on 25.04.1981. On 22.05.1981 the plaintiff through his counsel issued a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant by 13.06.1981. Upon service of this notice the defendant sent a reply and informed the plaintiff to wait till decision of the appeal preferred against the order of the Rent Controller. Appeal ...

Mrs. Henriqueta Maria Julieta Leonor Pereira De Sa E Souza Alias Julie ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR681; 2008(4)MhLj908

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for final hearing. Mr. Kanthak, learned Advocate General waive service on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the acquisition proceedings after the service of notice dated 5.11.2007 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act). The only prayer made in the writ petition reads thus:(a) For the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing acquisition proceedings initiated by the notification at annexure 'A' as same being lapsed and consequently the award and notice at annexure 'B'.4. Annexure 'A', referred to in the prayer, is Section 6 notification dated 9.10.2004 and annexure 'B' is the notice dated 5.11.2007 under Section 12(2) of the Act. The award under Section 11 was passed on 22.9.2006. Initially, the challenge was on the ground that the award ...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Emptee Poly-yarn Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1148; (2008)218CTR(Bom)657

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Various questions have been framed as questions of law. It is, however, essential to reframe the questions as Questions A, B, D. E, and F as framed are referable to only one question. The questions as reframed and on which the Appeal is admitted and finally heard are as under:A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, twisting and texturising of POY, amounts to manufacturing or production of an article or thing distinct from the commodity involved in the manufacture and, therefore, entitled for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act?B. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the view taken by the A.O. in earlier years cannot be changed in subsequent years and thereby importing the maxim of res judicata in income-tax proceedings.?2. A few facts may be noted. The relevant assessment year is assessment year 1996-97. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment disallowing claim under Section 80HH and 80I and 80IA on the ground that...

Anusaya Wd/O Purushottam Patil Vs. Shobha W/O Govindrao Tembhare and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR739; 2008(3)MhLj423

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The original plaintiff has by this second appeal challenged reversing judgment and decree dated 29-6-2005 delivered by 10th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur in regular Civil Appeal No. 463 of 2000. The suit was filed by present appellant vide special Civil Suit No. 554 of 1986 against present respondent No. 1 Smt. Shobha for grant of specific performance and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 50,100/-. The agreement dated 30-9-1985 was with one Subhadrabai w/o Rambhau Kolhe and suit as filed on 4-12-1986 was also against Subhadrabai. Subhadrabai expired during pendency of suit on 12-6-1990. Thereafter present respondent Shobha was brought on record as her legal representative and daughter. The trial Court decreed the suit on 30-7-1992.2. The reason given by Appellate Court for reversing the judgment of trial Court is that present appellant/plaintiff did not bring on record husband of Subhadrabai by name Rambhau Kolhe in civil suit and as such specif...

Bapu Dadarao Shinde and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009ACJ1834; 2008(4)MhLj679

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The appellants were the original claimants in a claim petition filed under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 who have challenged the Judgment and Order dated 12th April, 2004 passed by the learned Members of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bombay Bench at Bombay. The learned Advocate for the appellants has placed on record a compilation containing true copies of pleadings, notes of evidence and all the documents produced before the Tribunal.2. According to the case made out by the appellants in their claim petition, the appellants are the parents of one Milind Bapu Shinde. According to the appellants, the said Milind was travelling by a local train from Bhandup Station to Churchgate station via Dadar. According to the appellants, the said Milind fell down from a running train near Ghatkopar railway station at about 8:30 a.m. on 14th September, 1999. He sustained injuries as a result of the accidental fall ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Star Chemicals (Bombay) (P) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Bom)319; [2009]313ITR126(Bom)

1. The appeal is preferred on the following questions:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in confirming the order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 79,27,211 on account of bad debt despite the debt has not become bad?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in confirming the order of CIT(A) in directing the AO not to exclude interest on bank deposit of Rs. 3.64 lakhs from the business profit for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC?2. The issue arises from the amendment to Section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act. Subsequent to the amendment the Board has issued Circular No. 551, dt. 23rd Jan., 1990 [(1990) 82 CTR (St) 325 : (1990) 183 ITR 7]. The issue pertained to bad debt in para 6.6. The relevant portion of the direction reads as under:In order to eliminate the disputes in the matter of determining the year in which a bad debt can...