Mumbai Court June 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Goa Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd.,

Court: Mumbai

1. The appellant Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa applied to this Court Under Section 35(H) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court the following question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal: Whether Tribunal is empowered to over ride the power of Commissioner, conferred by legislation under Rule 173E of Central Excise Rules, 1944 to fix up the production norms that too based on the formula disclosed by the assessee during inquiry under Sub-rule (20) of the Rule 173E, 1944.2. The controversy in the case does not really give rise to the question which the Commissioner applied for framing Under Section 35(H) of Central Excise Act. The facts are : That in pursuance of a raid, the Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,21,448.43/- and penalty of Rs. 1 Lac and another penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in respect of the unit of the respondent M/s. Goa Bottling Company. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that th...

Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay Vs. Balwantrai C. Thakkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR337

Sayed A.A., J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 10th November, 1989 whereby the Appeal No. 521 of 1987 filed by the petitioners in Obstructionist Notice No. 98 of 1984 in L.E. and C. Suit No. 15/16 of 1978 came to be partly allowed and the findings of the trial Court in so far as the Obstructionists Notice not being maintainable were set aside and the Obstructionist Notice was 'remanded' to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. Direction was also given by the Appeal Court to dispose of the Obstructionist Notice as early as possible and preferably before the end of June, 1990. Thus what is challenged in this writ petition is the order of remand by the Appeal Court of the Obstructionist Notice on the ground that the Appeal Court itself could have decided the matter on merits.2. The petitioners, the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, had filed the suit, inter alia for recovery possession of the suit premises and arrears of rent. The decree came to b...

Ross Murarka (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority, S.K. Laul, Mem ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]315ITR41(Bom)

A.V. Nirgude, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated February 26, 1993, passed by the Appropriate Authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short).2. Before the arguments could begin, learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Pardiwalla stated that the petitioners would not proceed against respondent No. 3 and accepting this statement, respondent No. 3 is dropped.3. The relevant facts of the case may be stated as under:4. One flat in a building called 'Twin Towers' situated at Prabhadevi, Mumbai, was offered for sale by its owner one Scale Investments Ltd. to the petitioners in November, 1984. The petitioner agreed to purchase the flat (Flat No. A-271 and four covered car parking spaces) for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 44,00,000 on March 5, 1985, paying Rs. 4,00,000 as earnest money and agreeing to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 40,00,000 by April 30, 1985. It was specifically contemplated that either the petitioners would buy the said...

Amadhi Investments Ltd., in Re

Court: Company Law Board CLB Mumbai

1. V.S. Rao Member. - The petitioner-company is a company registered with the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, having its registered office at Room No. 4, Thambai Co-operative Society, Sewri-Koliwada, Sewri(E), Mumbai. The company’s books of account and other records were inspected by the officers of Ministry of Corporate Affairs under section 209A. During the inspection some contraventions of the Companies Act have been identified by the inspecting officers. The company as per its statement has preferred suo motu application for compounding of its offences. Accordingly, the company submitted three applications along with its officers in default to the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, for compounding of offences of violation of the Companies Act. 2. The Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra after examining the compounding application received under section 621A of the Companies Act, 1956, for contravention of the Companies Act, has forwarded the same to this Bench with his repo...

Shabbir Ah. Ab. Raheem Hakeem and anr. Vs. Sajeda Abdul Hafiz and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR512; 2008(4)BomCR554

Sayed A.A., J.1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2007, passed by the District Judge, Malegaon in appeal, which came to be dismissed. The appeal was filed challenging the Order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Malegaon in R.C. Suit No. 87 of 2005.3. The controversy in the petition is regarding valuation of the suit property for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction. The suit was filed in respect of land admeasuring 88.47 sq.mts. The trial Court passed the order dated 15.10.2007 valuing the suit property at Rs. 11,58,505/- with directions for return of the plaint to the petitioner for presentation before the proper Court upon payment of required Court fees on the basis of the said valuation, against which the appeal was preferred, wherein the impugned order came to be passed. Pertinently, the petitioner had valued the suit at Rs. 2000/-.4. In pursuance of an order...

The Ito Vs. Lotia Court Co-op. Housing

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A)-XX, Mumbai dated 02/05/2005 relating to Assessment Year 2003-04 and arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The only issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal is against the computation of Capital Gains.3. Mr. Manish Mishra, Departmental Representative appeared for the Revenue and Mr. Prakash K. Jotwani, learned Counsel appeal for the assessee and put forward their contentions.4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Registered Society consisting of 11 members. The assessee society was entitled to receive certain TDR from the Municipal Corporation of Mumbai, as per which additional floors could be constructed on the existing building.The said right to receive TDR was assigned to a Builder by the members of the society for the purpose of repairing the said building. The assessee entered into an agreement with the developer wherein ...

Sitabai Vishnu Shenvi Desai Vs. State

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR784; 2008(6)BomCR226; 2008(5)MhLj395

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. By the impugned Order, the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Mapusa has declined to pass any orders authorizing the petitioner to sell the properties of the minor under Article 1488 of the Portuguese Civil Code.3. According to the learned Civil Judge, such an application for authorisation may be considered and granted depending on the inventory proceeding or the interdiction proceeding. Since no inventory proceedings were brought to the notice, the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application as premature.4. Article 1488 of the Portuguese Civil Code, translated officially, reads as follows:When it is necessary to sell, lease, mortgage or by any other manner oblige the property of minors or of interdicted persons and the act depend on judicial authorization, this shall be applied for, stating the justification for the act and immediately giving proofs.The authorization shall be granted or denied after hearing the relatives o...

Sociedade Patriotica Dos Baldios Das Novas Conquistas Vs. Sudhakar Sag ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR679; 2008(6)BomCR788; 2008(5)MhLj391

N.A. Britto, J.1. Heard Shri S. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant. The respondents who were duly served, have chosen to remain absent, continuously.2. The appellant was the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 24/1994. The said civil suit was filed by the appellant for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents and the same was decreed by the trial Court by judgment/decree dated 28-11-2003. The defendants having filed an appeal to the District Court, the learned Additional District Judge was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. The learned Additional District Judge then directed that the claim of tenancy taken by the respondents be referred to the Mamlatdar for his determination. It is this order which is under challenge in the present appeal.3. The plaintiff is the owner of a property surveyed under No. 84/0. The defendants reside in the house which is shown by letter V-1 in form I and XIV in the name of Yeshwant S...

Zakir Murtuz Hiroli and ors. Vs. Shree Siddheshwar Devasthan Panch Com ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR255; 2008(5)BomCR929; 2008(5)MhLj591

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The suit property involved in the matter are two sheds with open land situated at Solapur. The property belongs to Shri Sidheshwar Devasthan Panch Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Trust'). The respondent Nos. 1 to 34 are the trustees of the said Trust. The Trust with the said trustees filed Regular Civil Suit No. 195 of 1973 for eviction and possession and for recovery of rent against the respondent Nos. 35 and 36. It was the contention of the plaintiff-Trust that the land along with two sheds was used for the purpose of holding the fodder market and the cultivators used to bring fodder on their bullock-carts for sale in that market. The plaintiff-Trust had entered into an agreement with Haji Hasansaheb and under that contract Haji Hasansaheb was allowed to conduct the fodder market and to collect charges of four annas from each bullock-cart coming to that market. He was also allowed to collect the pieces of fodd...

Sangita D/O Natthulal Labhane Vs. Yashodhara W/O Krishna Bhitre and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj820

A.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Anjan De, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Smt. Wandile, learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 2.2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant takes exception to the order dated 27-7-2006 passed by the 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 14/2006 thereby condoning the delay and dismissing the revision application preferred against the order dated 19-9-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandrapur issuing process against the applicant in Criminal Complaint No. 327/2001.3. Briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of the present application are as under:Respondent No. 1 Yashodhara married Krishna Bhitre on 13-4-1990 at Nagpur. On 6-8-2001 respondent No. 1 filed Criminal Complaint No. 327/2001 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur against Krishna Bhitre, the present applicant and ...