Mumbai Court March 2008 Judgments

Powai Panchsheel Chs and ors. Vs. Mhada and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR371; 2008(3)BomCR8

J.N. Patel, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. We propose to dispose of all these three writ petitions by common judgment and order as in all these petitions the petitioners are claiming right of allotment of flats in building No. 8 consisting of 47 flats which were constructed by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board (for short 'the Board') constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (for short 'MHAD Act') under Powai Mass Housing Scheme. 3. During the years 1990-1995 the Board constructed a total of 1,924 flats (comprising of 1,673 non-deluxe flats and 251 deluxe flats) in various buildings forming part of the said project. By the time the project got completed there was a steep slump in the real estate market during the period 199495 which resulted in crushes in prices of real estate. In order to dispose of the flats the Board issued an advertisement of sale of flats in the said project at the rate of Rs. 2,995/-per sq. ft., but...

Yuth Development Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Balasaheb Dinkarrao Salokh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR444; 2008(5)MhLj326

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.2. To state in brief, the respondent No. 1 before this Court is the original plaintiff and the applicant is the original defendant No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Admitted facts are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are real brothers. They are also partners in the firm, M/s Sudin Motors, which is the respondent No. 2. Both the partners approached the applicant bank for cash credit facility and as the applicant is a co-operative bank, all the three respondents became members of Class A and the bank agreed to provide cash credit facility to the limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. Respondent No. 3 was authorised to operate the bank account. On the basis of the authorisation and as per instructions from the respondent No. 3, certain amounts from the cash credit loan account of the respondent No. 2 firm were transferred to the personal loan account of the respondent No. 3. On 1-3-2004 the applicant issued ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tata Honey Well Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of she case are that M/s Tata Honey Well are engaged in the manufacture of Process Control Systems (PCS), Distributed Control System (DCS) and Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) which was classified under chapter heading 9032.80. They also manufacture software for PCS and PLCs and if cleared with DCS and PLCs, the same was classified by them under Chapter sub-heading 9032.80, but when supplied independently they were cleared under CSH 8524.90 up to March 1997 and CSH 8524.20 from April 1997 onwards. For the software cleared independently, the respondent claimed exemption under notification 48/94 dated 1.3.94, which exempted computer software from the whole of duty.2. On investigation, it was found that the DCS manufactured and cleared by the respondent typically consists of many small computers which are distributed through out the installation doing different tasks. These DCS were classified by them under Chapter 9032.80. PLC consists of a Central Processing Unit...

Shri Sadanand M. Gurav Vs. State of Goa Through Its Chief Secretary,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR921

1. Heard. The petitioner by the present petition challenges the order passed by the respondents declaring him to have attained the age of superannuation on completion of age of 58 years when in terms of provisions of law applicable to the petitioner, he would attain the age of superannuation on completion of 60 year's of age. 2. Undisputed facts on record are that, the petitioner has completed 58 years of age on 11.2.2007. In terms of notification dated 11th October, 2000 published in official gazette Series I 29 dated 19th October, 2000, the Government had declared that all the instructors in the Government Colleges and institutions in the State of Goa shall attain the age of superannuation on completion of 60 years, instead of 58 years as was the practice earlier. Further there was amendment made to Rule 3 of the Goa State Civil Services Retirement Rules, 2000 and the notification in that regard was published in the official gazette Series I No. 8 dated 30th May, 2006 whereby proviso...

Badriparasad Jagannath Agrawal and Sunil Pandurang Hazare Vs. Madhu Dr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR732; 2009(1)BomCR427; 2008(4)MhLj185

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Second Appeal the original plaintiff. Badriprasad as also subsequent purchaser from him, Sunil seek to challenge the concurrent judgment and decrees delivered by the Courts below. Badriprasad along with one Shaileshkumar filed Regular Civil Suit No. 102/1983 for recovery of possession of the suit house on the basis of title against the present respondent. Plaintiff No. 2 -Shaileshkumar claimed that defendant No. 2 Smt. Godawaribai [present respondent No. 2], was not legally weeded wife of his father deceased -Harindrakumar and also her son Madhu was therefore not legitimate child of Harindrakumar. He claimed that both of them were licencees in respect of two rooms of the suit house and their licence was terminated. Shaileshkumar sold suit house to Badriprasad on 21.02.1983. The defendant No. 1 and 2 [present respondent Nos. 1 and 2] denied all these allegations and claimed legal status as also legal heir-ship. They further stated that the plaintiff No. ...

Pune Municipal Corporation Through Municipal Commissioner Vs. Dnyanesh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR375; 2009(1)BomCR433; 2008(3)MhLj853

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition challenges the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Pune on 20.10.1993 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent for fixation of rateable value. The respondent, aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.1990 fixing the rateable value for Shop No. 3 on the ground floor of the building at CTS No. 1373, Sadashiv Peth, Pune, had preferred the appeal. The Small Causes Court has allowed the appeal by concluding that there cannot be a distinction between the taxes levied for residential premises and commercial premises. The Court came to the conclusion that since the occupant of shop No. 8 which was used for residential purposes was paying the rateable value @ Re.1/- per sq.ft, the respondent was also liable to pay rateable value at the same rate. The rateable value was thus fixed for the shop at Rs.1370/- w.e.f. 1.1.1990.2. Mr.Ketkar, appearing for the petitioner, takes exception to the judgment of the trial Court by raising two issues namely that the learned j...

Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna Vs. K. Rangrajan, Deputy Director of Inspect ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Bom)55; [2008]306ITR121(Bom)

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This writ petition is filed by Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') impugning an order dt. 22nd Dec., 1987 passed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 132(5) of the IT Act, 1961 (as it then stood).2. The brief relevant facts of the case were as under:(a) In pursuance of authorisation under Section 132 of the IT Act issued by the Dy. Director of Inspection (Inv.) Unit-I, New Delhi, a search was carried out on 25th Aug., 1987 at room No. 2214 at Maurya Sheraton Hotel, Delhi, which was then occupied by the petitioner. During the course of search, cash amount of Rs. 4,99,900 out of the total cash amount of Rs. 5,00,000 came to be seized. A single note of Rs. 100 was not seized as the same was found in damaged condition.(b) It was the allegation of the authority that the petitioner had come to Delhi from Bombay on 25th Aug., 1987 by the morning flight of Indian Airlines and checked in Maurya Sheraton Hotel at 3.30 p.m. At the time of com...

Oberoi Constructions Private Limited a Company Registered Under the Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR546; 2008(3)BomCR408; (2008)110BOMLR951

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. On 21st March, 2008, we observed world 'forest' day. On 23rd March, 2008 in Maharashtra we observed 'Tukaram Beej'. That is the day on which Saint Tukaram, a Seventeeth Century Poet, regarded by many as the greatest in Marathi language, left for his Nirvana. Eachone of us has forgotten his apt remark and observation regarding a forest, the Trees and the creatures. He says:Trees, creepers and the creatures of the forest Are my kith and kin And birds that sweetly sing This is bliss! How I love being alone! Here I am beyond good and evil Commit no sinThe sky is my canopy, the earth my throne. My mind is free to dwell wherever it will. A piece of cloth, one all purpose bow! Take care of all my bodily needs.The wind tells me the time. Translated from original Marathi by Dilip Chitre, Penguin Classics, 1991.Reciting these lines today is like talking of other world. At least, the land owners and all those claiming through them think so. We rest here and say nothing mo...

Shri Anilkumar Gokuldas Rai Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR397; 2008(4)MhLj55

ORDERD.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition impugns an order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, in RTS Appeal No.343 of 2006, by which the said appeal has been dismissed and the order dated 10.4.2006 passed by the Additional District Collector, Nashik has been confirmed. By the impugned orders, the Authorities below have levied forty times penalty for unauthorised use of NA (residential) as NA (commercial) for the period from 1998-2005.3. The petitioner is the owner of City Survey No.1068/75C/ID, admeasuring 2023.41 sq.meters, (for short, 'the said plot') situated at Manmad, Taluka Nandgaon, District-Nashik. The said plot was purchased by the petitioner's father by a registered sale deed dated 21.9.1972 from Mathurabai Deshmukh. It was already assessed to NA (Residential) purpose, under an order passed way back in the year 1933. In 1998, the petitioner submitted plans for construction of a hotel and s...

Union of India (Uoi) Through Executive Engineer Vs. R.K. Goel and Asso ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1189

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Appellants-original claimants have preferred this Appeal against the impugned Judgement and Order dated 4th April, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No.65 of 2000 rejecting summarily the petition without going into the merits, by holding that the same is barred by limitation by applying the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (New Arbitration Act) though the Arbitration commenced under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Old Arbitration Act).2 The Respondents tender was accepted by the Appellants on 11.6.1990 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract document having clause for arbitration. The Respondents could complete only 45% of work. Therefore, by notice dated 9.7.1993 the contract was rescinded. The Appellants and the Respondents were unable to attend joint measurement of the work on 15.07.1993 which was later on accepted by the Respondents. The Appellants engaged another contractor to ...