Mumbai Court July 2008 Judgments

Karwa Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Baburao K. Malgaonkar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR140]

S.A. Bobde, J.1. By this petition, the employer has challenged the Judgment and Order of the Fifth Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 175 of 1996 holding the respondent No. 1's termination to be illegal and directing payment of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards compensation. The learned Labour Court rejected the prayer for reinstatement with full back wages.The respondent No. 1 was working as an office boy with the petitioner. He had been employed from the year 1989. The services of the respondent were terminated orally on 16.2.1995. Termination was apparently due to the offensive behaviour of the respondent and mistakes at work. The petitioner terminated his services having lost confidence in. him. A dispute regarding this, was referred to the Labour Court.2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company comprising of about 4 Directors, who are brothers. The petitioner company works as a commission agent for procurement of cement for their customers. The customers place orders on them on ...

Avaya Global Connect Ltd. Vs. Acit Range 7(3)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 20.11.2006 of learned CIT(A)-XXIII, Mumbai relating to A.Y. 2002-03.2. First dispute that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the revenue authorities were justified in holding that a capital gain arose on transfer of TFD by the assessee to ITEL, in computing such capital gain on transfer at Rs. 45.9S Crores and bringing the same to tax.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the above issue are as follows: The Assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of providing solutions in the field of voice communications and manufacture of telephone instruments, EPBAX systems etc. It was earlier known as Tata Telecom Ltd. (TTL). The Assessee had two divisions viz. Business Communications Divisions (BCD) and the Tata Fone Division (TFD), The BCD provided communication solutions and the TFD was engaged in the manufacture of EPBAX and telephone instruments. During the previous year relevant to the ass...

Shri Abdul Rehman Abdul Wahid Siddiqui @ Rehman Kashmiri Vs. Shri D.N. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2604

A.A. Kumbhkoni, J.1. This is a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a detenu who is presently detained at Central Prison Thane. This petition questions validity of order of detention being D.O. No. 123/PCB/DP/Zone -II/2007 dated 23 rd October 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ''the impugned order '' for the sake of brevity), issued under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ''the said Act'' for the sake of brevity), passed against the detenu by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai. 2. On 7th September 2007 Senior Inspector of Police of Pydhonie Police Station, Mumbai submitted a proposal for detention of the detenu under the said Act. The detaining authorities considered and scrutinized the material placed before it and upon its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the m...

Manoj B. Joshi Vs. 8th Income-tax Officer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Bom)481; [2009]179TAXMAN30(Bom)

A.A. Kumbhkoni, J.1. This tax appeal is filed by an assessee against the assessment order pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99. The appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of his contention (which is set out hereunder) by all the lower authorities, including the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.2. Admittedly the appellant has received an additional amount of Rs. 29,11,000 (Rs. Twenty nine lakhs, eleven thousand only) (hereinafter referred to as 'the amount in issue' for brevity). According to the appellant firstly receipt of the amount in issue by him is not an income subject to payment of income-tax within the definition of Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the sake of brevity) and secondly (rather alternatively) that the same is 'income from long-term capital gain' and not 'income from other sources' as held by all the lower authorities.2. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by all the lower authorities against the appellant and ...

Novita Tukaramji Mangle Vs. Saibaba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR183; 2008(5)MhLj618

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 26-11-2007 made by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati. There was a delay of about one year in preferring appeal before the School Tribunal. The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal has in paragraph No. 4 of his impugned order made out a strange proposition of law. The Tribunal has said that there is a settled law that for deciding issue of condonation of delay, the Court has to consider only averments of the party who filed the application for condonation of delay, meaning thereby the Court or Tribunal has to ignore the reply of the other side. When the explanation was called from the Presiding Officer, he has justified the same by saying that he wrote the said proposition of law following the law laid down consistently by the Superior Courts that the averments in the plaint alone decide the jurisdiction of the Court. The...

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited Vs. Paints Employees Union

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR531; [2008(119)FLR137]; (2009)ILLJ76Bom; 2009(2)MhLj213

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the order dated May 5,2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, holding that the petitioners are not entitled to effect closure of its Lower Parel Establishment and directing them to pay full wages to all the concerned workmen with effect from February 2, 2003. The petitioner had applied under Section 25-O of the Industrial Dispute Act (for short 'I.D. Act') for permission to close its Lower Parel Unit. That application was allowed on March 27, 2003 by the Commissioner of Labour. On April 15, 2003 the respondent union applied for review or reference of the permission of closure under Section 25-O(5) of the I.D. Act. On April 24, 2003, the Commissioner Labour who is the Specified Authority under Section 25-O declined to review permission for closure and instead referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The question is whether by. declining to review, the Specified Authority has rej...

Asaram Kanhaji Gaikwad Vs. Kusumbai Sahebrao Jadhav

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR534; 2009(1)BomCR423; 2008(6)MhLj534

P.R. Borkar, J.1. Heard Shri A.S.Shelke, advocate for the appellant and Shri A.D. Sugdare, advocate for the respondent.2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Jalna in Regular Civil Appeal No. 179 of 1991 decided on 12.7.1999; whereby appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned III Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna in Regular Civil Suit No. 444 of 1988 decided on 31.8.1991 was set aside.3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the present appellant has filed suit for compensation for malicious prosecution against the present respondent. The Trial Court decreed the suit and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,500/-; whereas the learned District Judge set aside the said decree and dismissed the suit.4. Facts involved in appeal are undisputed at this stage. Thus, it is admitted position that present appellant is the original plaintiff, who filed Regular Civil Suit No. 444 of 1988 against t...

G. Pratibha Raghuram W/O Shri G. Raghuram and S.K. Alwar F/O G. Pratib ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR335; 2009(1)BomCR210; (2008)110BOMLR2571

Bilal Nazki, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the wife and father-in-law of one Raghuram, who was a Leading Electrical Mechanic Aircraft Radio in the Air Electrical Department, and was attached to INS VIRAAT.2. According to the petition, said Raghuram had an exemplary service record with the Navy, and had not received any reprimand or punishment throughout his career. In the normal course, he would have retired in the year 2002. Earlier, he was posted in Goa, and on 1st November, 1998, he was transferred to Mumbai, and was allotted quarters for residence in Navy Nagar. On 8th November, 1998, Raghuram went for duty on INS VIRAAT. Said ship sailed on 9th November, 1998. Raghuram was on board when it sailed. According to the petition, when the ship reached Marmagao on 10th November, 1998, it docked there for a few hours, and then sailed again for exercises at high sea. The ship returned to Mumbai on 4th December, 1998. The petitioners did not receive any communication from Raghur...

Sau Mandakini W/O Bhausaheb Pagire Vs. Bhausaheb Genu Pagire and the S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2581; 2009CriLJ70; 2008(6)MhLj468

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this petition, petitioner impugns judgement and order rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Criminal Revision Application No. 139/2000 whereby and whereunder order of restoration of maintenance application bearing Cri. M.A. No. 27/1997 rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmednagar, came to be reversed.2. The petitioner is wife of respondent No. 1. He filed an application (Cri. M.A. No. 27/1997) for maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application was dismissed on 27th January, 1999 because the petitioner (wife) was found absent. She thereafter filed an application on 08-02-1999 (Cri. M.A. No. 15/1999) for restoration of the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She asserted that she was suffering from cold and fever since 23rd January, 1999 and was, therefore, absent on the date of hearing. She further asserted that the learned Sessions Judge was misinformed that ther...

Anant Tukaram Nalawade Vs. Sou. Latika Anant Nalawade and State of Mah ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj465

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner challenges the orders passed on 1.11.2007 below Exh.5 and 17/1/2008 below Exh.11 in Criminal Revision Application No. 299 of 2007 by the Sessions Judge, Sangli.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: The petitioner and the respondent No. 1 are husband and wife. The respondent No. 1 has filed Special Civil Suit No. 63 of 2003 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangli, seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. An application for interim relief was also preferred by the respondent No. 1 in this suit. The petitioner contested the suit and opposed the grant of interim maintenance. The C.J.S.D., Sangli allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 partly by directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1500/- per month to the respondent No. 1. This order was passed on 14.1.2006.3. In the meantime, while the Civil Suit was pending, the respondent No. 1 filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 64 of 2005 claiming maintena...