Mumbai Court March 2008 Judgments

Rajindar Karamsingh Walia Vs. Official Liquidator of Patel Synthetics

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]91SCL139(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. All these applications shall stand disposed of by this common order, as the issues raised are over-lapping. In all fourteen applications were listed before me claiming similar relief against the Official Liquidator. Out of the said fourteen applications, two applications, being Company Application Nos. 645 of 2007 and 1008 of 2007, have been disposed of by separate orders passed on 3 -3-2008 and 5-3-2008 respectively as not pressed. In other words, the present common order will dispose of remaining twelve applications on board.2. In each of these twelve applications, the applicant asserts that the applicant security agency was appointed under the instructions of the Official Liquidator to provide security arrangement in respect of immovable and movable assets of the concerned company in liquidation or in relation to those companies where for the Official Liquidator was appointed as Provisional Liquidator. According to each of these applicants they have provided se...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This stay application is directed against the confirmation of demand of service tax of Rs. 18,11,674/- and consequent penalty.3. The confirmation of demand of service tax has arisen on the ground that the appellant (MSRTC Ltd.,) was engaged in rendering of services tour operators. To come to such conclusion, the Ld. Adjudicating authority has relied upon the definition of "tour operator" as is enshrined in the Finance Act 1944.4. It is seen from the records that the appellants/applicant's liability of service tax prior to 10/09/2004, the issue is settled in favour of the applicant. As regards the service tax liability, post 10/09/2004, we find that they are in challenge of the liability to tax under the category of "tour operators", which may or may not cover the activities of the applicant. It is also to be considered whether the applicant being a State Government Organisation would fall under the category of tour operator or not. These details have to be appreciated at the time o...

Rajendraprasad S/O Gangabishen Porwal Vs. Mr. Santoshkumar Parasmal Sa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2955

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this revision application is to judgement rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2006,confirming order of conviction and sentence renderedagainst the present applicant for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in Criminal Case (STC) No. 640 of 2005.2. The applicant was tried before learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Partur for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) held him guilty and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1)month. He was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25 lacs under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Questions involved in the revision application are:(i) Whether mere admission regarding signature on the cheque would suffice to reach conclusion with aid of legal...

Gobind Builders and Developers Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Bom)75; [2009]309ITR167(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner had filed his return of income for the asst. yrs. 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively on 30th Sept., 2003, 26th Sept., 2004 and 30th Oct., 2005. There was a search and seizure operation on the premises of the petitioner on 9th Dec., 2004 and 10th Dec., 2004, as a result of which certain books and papers were found and seized. The petitioners contend that their firm came in existence on 1st May, 2002. During the search a diary relating to receipts and expenditure of the firm on its project was also seized. The entries in the diary are partly recorded in the books of account on the basis of which regular returns were filed. According to the petitioner as the entries in the diary, its reconciliation with books of account and their interpretation involved complex investigation, the petitioner approached the Respondent No. 1 by filing an application dt. 14th Sept., 2006 under Section 245C of the IT Act, hereinafter referred to...

Sunita Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Bom)74

1. Considering the declaration sought as to the Constitutional validity of Sections 245D(2D) and 245HA of IT Act, 1961 and considering the similar orders passed in earlier petitions, rule.2. Notice has already been given to learned advocate general.3. As the counsel for the Revenue seeks time to file affidavit in reply, by way of interim relief, we direct that during the pendency of this petition, Settlement Commission not to consider the Settlement Application filed by the petitioner No. 1 having abated under Section 245HA of the Act for want of compliance with Section 245D(2D) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2007.4. Respondent waives service....

Canara Bank Vs. Eastern Mechanical Works and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom188; 2008(6)BomCR670; 2008(5)MhLj720

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties.2. This suit is filed by Nationalized Bank against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for recovery of their dues with interest thereon. Defendant No. 1 is proprietorship concern; whereas, defendant No. 2 is a guarantor. The defendant No. 2 has expired. His heirs and legal representatives were not brought on record. Consequently, the suit stood abated against him.The Factual Matrix:3. The factual matrix reveal that defendant No. 1 enjoyed cash credit facility in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- against hypothecation of cinema equipments, spare parts and other goods lying in the office premises of defendant No. 1 located at Purushottam Building, 25-A, Tribhuvan Road, Bombay 440004.4. The defendant No. 1, in consideration having sanctioned cash credit facility had executed various loan documents including promissory note, deed of hypothecation and pledge of goods with various other documents on 22-5-1987. The details of which are to be found in para ...

Kiran Gokuldas Kalantry Vs. Dr. Prithi Paul Singh Sethi

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3764

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. By the present application, the applicants are seeking to get the Judgment and order dated 10-07-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 1148 of 2007 recalled and to intervene in the said writ petition as the party respondents thereto.3. The few facts relevant for the decision are that Respondent No. 1 herein is the original petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1148 of 2007, whereas Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the respondents therein. The said writ petition was filed seeking directions relating to investigation concerning M.E.C.R. No. 02 of 2005 which was lodged at Vakola Police Station. Mumbai and for transfer of investigation to some other investigating agency. The said MECR was registered pursuant to the magistrate's order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was registered against the applicants herein by the Respondent No. 1 herein alleging commission of offence by the three app...

J.K. Travels Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This stay application is directed against the order confirming an amount of Rs. 15,33,448/-.2. The confirmation of the demand of Service Tax has arisen on the ground that the applicant has provided the services of tour operators by hiring out the vehicles, for picking and dropping of employees and children. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the applicant is that for the period October 2000 to September 2004 (till the definition underwent change) they are covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Gandhi Travels 2007 (6) S.T.R. 430 (Tri. Ahmd.).As regards demand for the period from October 2004 to March 2005, it is his submission that it will be covered by the amended definition. On the other hand the ld. Jt. CDR's contention is that the activity of picking up the employees / children from one place to other place will get covered under the definition of planning, scheduling and organising or arranging tours "by any mode of transport." So it is his submissio...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Mr. Avinash D. Kambl ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR1; 2008(2)BomCR497; (2008)110BOMLR805; 2008(4)MhLj125; 1996(72)FLR166

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29-4-2005 rendered by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant-employer and partially allowing the petitions by the respondent-employees, the employer has preferred these appeals. 2. The facts, in the context of which these proceedings have arisen and about which there is not much dispute, are as under:3. Appellant M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra manufactures tractors, jeeps, auto components, etc., in its plant including one at Nagpur according to market needs. For this purpose, apart from its regular work force, it also engages a large number of temporary workmen, who are employed and re-employed by issuing orders of appointments from time to time for fixed periods. These employees claimed to have completed 240 days of such employment and, therefore, demanded regularization and permanency. They complained that they were given deliberate breaks and other temporaries were employed in their place to preve...

Shriram Niwrutti Mahalle Vs. Pannalal S/O Narayandas Totala,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom194; 2008(3)ALLMR395; 2008(2)BomCR737; 2008(4)MhLj28

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is a second appeal by the unsuccessful defendant. The parties shall herein after be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under One Narayandas Totala was the original owner of the suit site. Plaintiff. Pannalal is the adopted son of said Narayandas, he having been adopted on 3/7/1979. Said Narayandas died on 11/5/1981 leaving behind him the plaintiff as the only heir. The plaintiff, therefore, became the owner of the entire property upon death of said Narayandas. The plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 2 Bhojraj has illegally transferred the suit site to defendant No. 1 on 17/11/1984 by registered sale-deed. Defendant No. 3 Gendabai had given consent for such transaction. The plaintiff submits that the said alienation made by defendant No. 2 is illegal and not binding on him as he was minor at the time of alienation. It is contended that the plaintiff and his father Narayandas possessed sufficient inco...