Mumbai Court April 2008 Judgments

Suresh Manoharlal Suri and ors. Vs. Gold Touch Real Estate Private Ltd ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR169

Joshi A.H., J.1. On 23rd August, 2007, this Court had issued rule and granted interim relief. The revision application is accordingly listed for final disposal.2. Heard.3. The case proceeds on certain admitted facts, namely:(a) Defendant Nos. 1 to 5, on one hand, and the defendant No. 6, on the other hand, have entered into Agreement for Development dated 26th June, 2000 which is at Annex.I.(b) Agreement dated 26th June, 2000 contains an Arbitration Clause.(c) The defendant No. 6 was not in a position to fulfill its promise.(f) There were negotiations, apparently tripartite, with plaintiff on one hand, defendant Nos. 1 to 5 on the other hand and defendant No. 6 on the third. These tripartite negotiations resulted into Agreement dated 9th August, 2002 (Annex.II).(g) In the Agreement dated 9th August, 2002, the plaintiff undertook to abide by the commitments made by defendant No. 6, and agreed independent terms with defendant Nos. 1 to 5.(h) The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have issued notice d...

Sarla Kapur and anr. Vs. Sanjay Sudesh Kapur

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2009Bom117; 2009(1)BomCR416

Karnik D.G., J.1. Chamber Summons No. 52 of 2007 is taken out by the plaintiff (in the testamentary suit) for dismissal of the caveat dated 12th March, 2007 filed by the defendant opposing the grant of probate to the alleged Will dated 4th April, 2005 of Mr. Sudesh Kapur. Chamber Summons No. 80 of 2007 is taken out by the defendant (in the testamentary suit) for taking on record the additional affidavit in support of his caveat or in the alternative to allow the amendment to the affidavit in support of his caveat dated 12th March, 2007.2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that on 5th July, 2006 Mr. Sudesh Kapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') died leaving behind him the plaintiff as a widow and the defendant as his son. According to the plaintiff, the deceased has left behind him his last Will and testament dated 4th April, 2005.3. On 9th October, 2006, the defendant filed a suit bearing Suit No. 3020 of 2006 in this Court for administration of the estate of the decease...

Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)117TTJ(Mum.)577

1. These are the cross appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee which have been heard together and are being disposed off by the common order for the sake of avoidance.2. The major issue arising from these appeals relates to the claim of the assessee under Section 80HHF of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the Act). The first aspect of the issue in dispute is whether the claim of the assessee can be denied on the ground that there is loss in the export activity if the profits from export activity are computed on standalone basis by ignoring the results of other activities.3. Briefly stated the facts are these: The assessee company is engaged in (i) the business of producing television programmes and exporting the same to the foreign parties, (ii) acting as an agent for advertising sales for Star and Overseas media companies, and (iii) rendering services to media companies. In the year under consideration, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 12,97,67,452/- under Section 80HHF of the Act. In comp...

Shoreline Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Mum.)536

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A), confirming the addition of Rs. 19,01,475 on account of bogus purchases, made by the AO in the block assessment proceedings initiated under Section 158BD of IT Act, 1961 (the Act).2. The learned counsel for the assessee has raised the following additional ground: The notice issued under Section 158BD of IT Act, 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law and consequent assessment framed thereupon is liable to be cancelled.It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the ground raised is purely legal and goes to the root of the matter and is also based on the legal finding given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT . Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT adjudication of the additional ground. The only objection raised by the learned Departmental Representative is that such ground was never taken...

Chaganbhai Patel Vs. Lilabai Wd/O G.M. Jathar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR624; 2008(5)MhLj520

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is a second appeal by original defendant No. 1. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:The plaintiffs are occupying the suit premises as tenants. They have paid rent up to month of December, 1990. Plaintiff No. 2 is the son of plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 alone is residing in the suit house, since plaintiff No. 2, who is an engineer, is in service and is residing at Bhandara. The suit tenement consisted of three rooms. Defendant No. 2, who is the landlord of the plaintiffs, wanted to evict the plaintiffs from the suit premises. He, therefore, had applied to the Rent Controller for grant of permission to serve a notice of termination of tenancy of plaintiffs. The Rent Controller had rejected the application. A dispute had arisen between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 with regard to the egress and ingress. The plaintiff was, therefore, required to file a suit against...

iqubal Abdul Sattar Ghaniwale Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (iii)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj863

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent.Mr. A.S. Jaiswal, learned Counsel waives notice for respondents 1 to 4. Mr. Dastane waives notice for respondent No. 5. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 though served have not chosen to appear. The said respondents have been arraigned as party-respondents in view of the allegations of mala fide qua them. However, during the course of arguments, on instructions, Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner will not press the said ground of mala fide - if the petition was to be allowed on other grounds in favour of the petitioner. In fact, the ground of mala fide is required to be given up by the petitioner as respondents 6 and 7 have not been intimated about the order dated 21st February, 2008, on account of which, the matter has been posted today for final disposal. If the said ground was to be pressed by the petitioner, it would have become imperative for the petitioner to serve the respondents 6 and 7, with clear intima...

Ghodawat Foods International Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No.P-II/BKS/15/07 dated 31/01/2007.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of refined edible oil falling under chapter heading No. 1503 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said edible oil are exempted from payment of duty. The appellants manufactured packaging materials like jars, tins, etc. used for packing of refined edible oils. The assessee availed Cenvat credit on the inputs i.e., HDPE granules and tinplates. After an investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants directing them to reverse 10% of the amount of value of the exempted products cleared by them during the period September 2004 to February 2005 for utilizing duty paid inputs for the manufacturing of exempted final products without maintaining separate books of accounts. The appellants contested the show cause notice on various grounds. One of the grounds that ...

Vidya Prasarak Mandal a Public Trust Duly Registered Under the Public ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR705; (2008)110BOMLR1308; 2008(5)MhLj477

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioner is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. According to the petitioner, it has started Arts, Commerce and Science college which was run as one composite institution which was affiliated to Pune University. On 21.12.1976 the College was bifurcated into two independent colleges and both the colleges were affiliated to the Bombay University because the territory of the Bombay University was extended to Thane. The two colleges were called (i) K.G. Joshi College of Arts and N.G. Bedekar College of Commerce and (ii) B.N. Bandodkar College of Science. Apart from the aforesaid two colleges, the petitioner institution is running three more colleges viz. (i) T.M.C. Law college, (ii) V.P.M.'s polytechnic and (iii) Institute of Management Studies. According to the petitioner, all the five faculties are managed independently, administratively and financially and they are separate and distinct entities. According to the petitioner, one Mr. S.W....

Mahratta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agricultural and ors. Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1350

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. Agriculture and others, for an appropriate writ, direction or order restraining respondent Nos. 1 and 2, State of Maharashtra as well as Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, seeking to levy and recover from the petitioners octroi at an increased rate as per Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (Octroi) Rules, 2001, for the period between 6th January, 2002 and 14th February, 2002 and between 17th February, 2002 and 7th May, 2002, as the same is illegal, unlawful and contrary to law. 2. In accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), octroi can be levied by respondent No. 2-Corporation by framing Octroi Rules. Such rules were framed by respondent No. 2 Corporation. They were sanctioned by the Government on November 29, 2001. It is also an admitted fact that the Government granted the sanction in November,2001 and they were gazetted on 6th December,2001. They were brought into force...

Mr. Perwez KhajuddIn Kalal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR566; (2008)110BOMLR1242; [2008(118)FLR1108]

S.S. Shinde, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents, particularly Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, to pay the petitioners difference in salary as per the particulars given by the petitioner at Exhibit-F to the petition. 3. The brief facts, as narrated in the petition, are as under:The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in Respondent No. 4 Institution with effect from 1st July 2002. The petitioner was not issued any appointment letter. The petitioner applied to the said post pursuant to the advertisement given by the Management in Daily Sagar on 6.5.2002. The appointment of the petitioner was pursuant to the advertisement given by the Management on 6.5.2002. The petitioner was working in a Junior College on non grant aid basis, however, recognized by the Government. The petitioner was assured to pay salary as per the scale prescribed by the Government. In fact, the petitione...