Mumbai Court June 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashapura Garments (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR236; (2008)219CTR(Bom)195
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order of Tribunal dt. 7th May, 2007 whereby the appeal preferred by the Revenue has been dismissed and the order of the CIT(A) has been upheld.2. The CIT(A) vide his reasoned order set aside the penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(g) of the IT Act. The facts on record would indicate that the amount was paid into Government account on 1st March and 6th March, 2004. The TDS certificates were immediately issued on 2nd March and 7th March, 2004. Admittedly, TDS amount was not paid in time. The CIT(A) held that it was on account of financial constraint. We are not concerned with the said issue in the present appeal as failure to pay on due date results in different consequences. It has further come out on record that TDS certificates were sent by speed post on 25th March, 2004.3. The question of law as framed by the Department is as under:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribun...
Mohammad Ishak S/O Mohammad Kasam Vs. Hariram Gulabchand Mahajan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR380; 2008(6)MhLj201
A.P. Bhangale, J.1. This second appeal is filed against judgment and order dated 19-10-2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1998 confirming the judgment and order dated 26-2-1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Murtizapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 129 of 96 whereby the suit of present respondent-plaintiff came to be decreed.2. It was averred that appellant-defendant was lessee of plaintiff in respect of open site bearing Nazul Plot No. 120/3 and 121/3, admeasuring 12 x 65 feet on monthly rent of Rs. 100/- excluding municipal taxes. Earlier Small Causes Suit No. 25 of 1992 was filed by respondent-plaintiff against appellant-defendant for recovery of arrears of rent and that suit was decreed on 10-11-1995. Another suit viz. Regular Civil Suit No. 117 of 95 was filed for similar purpose and it was also decreed. Respondent-plaintiff filed application before the Rent Controller, Murtizapur for grant of permission to determine the ...
Shamrao Laxman Wagh Vs. Bala Laxman Wagh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR647
Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Jalna, in an appeal (R.C.A. No. 276/1981) confirming decree of dismissal of Suit (R.C.S. No. 34/1977).2. Subject-matter of the Suit comprised of two (2) agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 11/2, admeasuring 2 acres 27 gunthas and Survey No. 48/7, admeasuring 1 acre 23 gunthas, locally called 'pandhri' and 'ranmala', respectively, situated at village Warud under Bhokardan Tahsil. Appellant is the original plaintiff. Original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are his step brothers. Original defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are the sons of original defendant No. 2 Kisan. Original defendant No. 6 Bhagwan is a purchaser of the suit land from defendant No. 1 Bala. The father of appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Laxman Wagh died somewhere in 1964.3. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs case in the trial Court was that during his lifetime, deceased Laxman Wagh partitioned the ancestral properties in...
Fgp Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN147(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit on the following questions:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that: the royalty of Rs. 1.35 crores accrued to the appellant during the year in question.(2) In view of the principles laid down in the decision of this Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt Vimla D. Sonwane and Ors. : [1995]212ITR489(Bom) and the Supreme Court decision in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]225ITR746(SC) , whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in coming to its impugned conclusion.(3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that impugned royalty accrued to the appellant even though UPT, the party from whom the said amount is due had filed a suit in this Hon'ble Court denying its liability to make any payment under the said agre...
Chowgule and Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Director General of Foreign Tr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR261
Bobde S.A., J.1. By this petition, the petitioners, a registered export house exporting processed iron ore, seeks a mandamus to the respondents to grant additional licences or to pay premium of Rs. 1,21,69,200/- (being 20 % of Rs. 6,08,46,000/-) in lieu of 10 % additional licences for imports. Though this lis has a chequered history, now the scope of controversy has been restricted by the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 5764 of 2001, delivered on 4.4.07 in the latest round of litigation by the parties. The only point that survives for decision is whether the petitioners are eligible for grant of an additional licence as per Appendix 12 attached to Import and Export policy from April, 1990 to March, 1993. Appendix 12 of the Policy is a list of items which, if exported, does not make an exporter eligible for an export house licence and therefore an additional licence.2. The respondents' contention is that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of an additional licence or a p...
Gurmeet W/O Surjitsingh Asla Vs. Renusingh W/O Jogisingh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ443; 2008(6)MhLj692
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. K.V. Thomas for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Nikhil Deshpande with learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Jaiswal for the respondent No. 1. Perused the application, order thereon, and all other annexures.In the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, petitioner-complainant had completed and closed her evidence, but, therefore filed applications (Exhs.100 and 101) seeking leave to file new documents and praying for permission to prove those.2. It is alleged in these applications that certain documents were recently found, as those were misplaced/lost, and were relevant and vital for the case and hence production thereof and leave to prove the same be granted.Applications were rejected by the Trial Court, holding that documents now sought to be produced and proved attempted to couch a plea totally different from one contained in the deposition of the complainant, and hence present petition is filed by the complainant.3. Petition...
Hari Krishna Mandir Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR869
Nazki Bilal, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner assails the order passed by respondent No. 1 on 3rd May, 2006. Notice before admission was issued to the respondents. Counter affidavits have been filed and the matter has been heard for final disposal.2. The facts leading to filing of this petition as narrated by the petitioner, are:3. The property, which is the subject-matter of the writ petition, originally belonged to one Thorat family. One Mrs. Krishnabai Gopalrao Thorat sold the property Comprising Final Plot No. 473 and 473-B admeasuring 4910 sq. mtrs. on 29th December, 1956 in favour of Swami Dilipkumar Roy and Mrs. Indira Devi by a registered Sale Deed. This property was later on transferred on 12th March, 1997 to the petitioner Trust. Final Plot No. 473, according to the petitioner, had been divided into four plots being Final Plot Nos. 473-B1, 473-B2, 473-B3 and 473-B4. The order of division of this plot was passed on 20th August, 1970. From 4th March, 1986 the name of ...
Shri Mukesh Devaram Mandora Vs. the State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR146; 2008(5)BomCR100; (2008)110BOMLR2202
S.S. Shinde, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The present Petition is filed seeking direction to quash and set aside the letter dated 26th November, 2007 issued by the Respondent No. 3 to the Petitioner cancelling the admission of the Petitioner from the Respondent No. 3 college. 3. The Petitioner is a student who applied for admission to the first degree course in K.C.College of Engineering. The Petitioners claims to belong to 'Kumbar' caste included in Other Backward Category (OBC). The Petitioner was granted admission by the Respondent No. 3 College subject to the conditions that the Petitioners should submit the caste certificate for scrutiny within 12 weeks from the date of admission, failing which it was made clear to the Petitioner that the admission would be cancelled. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was granted admission provisionally from the reserved catego...
The State of Maharashtra Through the Regional Dairy Development Office ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR135; 2008(5)BomCR94; (2008)110BOMLR2318; [2008(119)FLR344]; (2008)IIILLJ474Bom; 2008(6)MhLj605
P.R. Borkar, J.1. These writ petitions are directed against identical orders passed by the Judge, Labour Court in various applications filed by respondent No. 1 in each petition under Sections 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming difference of wages on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. All respondent No. 1 in these writ petitions are employees of Government Milk Dairy at Udgir. The order challenged in Writ Petition No. 2778 of 1996 was passed on 12.8.1992 and in remaining Writ Petitions the order challenged was passed on 13.1.1993.2. In all these matters the case of all respondent No. 1 is that they have been working on daily wages applicable to unskilled labourers. They have worked with the petitioners continuously for several years. Due to continuous service within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 1947') they are entitled to regular scale and regular increments. Each has given details ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madhukar B. Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR412; (2008)218CTR(Bom)59; [2009]319ITR255(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of Tribunal. The assessee had taken from seven persons a loan of Rs. 20,000 each. This is a finding of fact and not in dispute. On behalf of the Revenue, the learned Counsel draws our attention to the statutory provisions of Section 269SS of the IT Act which uses the expression 'is twenty thousand rupees or more'. In other words, according to the learned counsel, if a person takes any loan in excess of Rs. 20,000 other than by cheque that would result in breaching the provisions of Section 269SS and consequently, penalty could be levied under Section 271D of the IT Act.2. From this, the question of law as framed reads as under:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the penalty did not urge in holding that the provision of Section 269SS would not apply to the loan or deposit taken in cash of Rs. 20,000 or more and, apply only to the loan what would have taken in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000?3. The learned Coun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »