Mumbai Court August 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.
Smt. Jagvatibai S. Taak Vs. Shri S.D. Paithane, the then Presiding Off ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR234]; (2009)ILLJ379Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition challenges the rejection of the reference by an award dated 17.7.1997. The Presiding Officer, VIII Labour Court, Mumbai, has rejected the Reference (IDA) No. 724 of 1991 as he has held that the respondent Society was not an industry.2. The brief facts involved in the present petition are as follows:The petitioner drew the attention of the Labour Commissioner to the fact that she was not being given the benefits of labour legislations. Conciliation proceedings were held where the Society agreed to grant certain benefits to the petitioner. By letter dated 28.1.1991, the Society placed the petitioner on probation. That letter was opposed by the petitioner as she contended that she was being treated as a new employee although she had completed almost 10 years of service with the Society. In June, 1991, the petitioner's services were terminated. She was not offered retrenchment compensation while terminating her services. The petitioner raised an industrial...
MushiruddIn Khatalsab Bepari Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2752
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to be a nephew of the detenu.2. The detenu has been detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 by an order of the Detaining Authority dated 6th February, 2008. He was arrested on 19th February, 2008. Prior to this, the detenu had been arrested in connection with a case on 5th April, 2007 and bailed out on 25th April, 2007. The Detention Order was passed on the basis of the material collected by the concerned agency with regard to the alleged smuggling activities of the detenu and placed before the Detaining Authority.3. Briefly stated, according to the respondents, the intelligence agency had gathered information that goods imported at Nhava Sheva Port of certain Delhi-based firms, which were covered by a Bill of Entry for warehousing were being diverted and sold in the market, instead of being taken to the Bonded Warehouses, whic...
Madhuri W/O Pramod Shaha Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vidarbha Regi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR631; (2008)220CTR(Bom)244
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21/10/1993 passed by the Commissioner, Income Tax Vidarbha Region, Nagpur whereby the interest under Section 139(8) of the Income Tax Act (for short 'Act') and penalties under Section 271(1)(a) for the assessment year 1985-86 to 1989-90 have been retained though prayed for waiving the same. Therefore, the petition.2. The petitioner is a house wife and earning through the private tuitions. She voluntarily submitted the returns of income tax for the assessment year 1985-86 to 1989-90 on 25/10/1989. The returns were submitted in good faith. There was no prior notice under Section 139(2) or 148 or 142(1) of the Act received by the petitioner. On the date of submission of her returns, she disclosed full and true income. She was unable to file the returns earlier as she was not aware of the provisions of the Act. Anyhow, voluntarily and in good faith she submitted the returns. She rendered cooperation to the Income Tax Depart...
Vasantbhai Jethalal Lathiwala (Karta of His Hindu Undivided Family Sty ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Bom)564
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28/12/1995 passed by the Commissioner, Income Tax Vidarbha Region, Nagpur, whereby the interest under Section 139(8) and penalty under Section 217 of the Income Tax Act (for short 'Act') for the assessment year 1984-85 to 1988-89 have been retained though prayed for waiving the same. Therefore, the present petition.2. The petitioner is a Karta of HUF. He voluntarily and in good faith pursuant to the assurance given by the Income Tax Department made a full and true disclosure of his income on 30/3/1992 before the Income Tax Officer at Yavatmal for assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89 before issuance of any notice by the Income Tax Department under Section 139(2) or under Section 148 of the Act, by filing returns for those years. The assessee accordingly paid the full taxes on the income so disclosed.3. The respondent issued notice under Section 148 on 31/3/1992. The petitioner informed about the filing of voluntary return...
Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Bom)581; [2009]308ITR406(Bom)
S.J. Kathawalla, J.1. The Tribunal, Mumbai has at the instance of the assessee, referred to this Court the following questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal dt. 27th Sept., 1991 in IT Appeal Nos. 3301 and 3302/Bom/1987 for the asst. yrs. 1966-67 and 1967-68.Asst. yrs. 1966-67 and 1967-681. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention of the assessee in law that after lapse of 17 years as the assessee could not produce the depositor and accordingly no penalty should have been levied?3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case when the income assessed under Section 68 of the Act, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied in law?4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the penalty by relying upon the alleged statement made...
Shewalkar Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2008
Reported in: [2010]321ITR318(Bom)
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 23-2-1993 passed under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short 'Act') and an order under Section 269UE(2) of the Act, dated 4-3-1993, thereby holding that the apparent consideration shown by transferor/transferee in Form No. 37-1 of the IT Act has been grossly understated and therefore, subjected the said property for pre-emptive protection at the consideration of Rs. 20,67,500 (-) Rs. 1,07,043 = 19,60,456 and, therefore, directed the transferee to handover the possession. The petitioner (transferee) entered into an agreement of development and sell with one Shri Vikramsinha Bisen and five others (transferors) to transfer the land admeasuring 16,540 sq. ft in Khasra No. 55, Mouja Ajni PSK 9, Wardha Road, Nagpur, for consideration of Rs. 20,67,500 i.e. @ Rs. 125 per sq. ft. The property mentioned in the agreement was sold @ Rs. 150 per sq. ft., however, the consideration was agreed to be paid @ Rs. 119 per...
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Through Executive Engineer, M.S.E. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR366; [2008(119)FLR219]; (2008)IIILLJ932Bom
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (M.S.E.B.) being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani in F.A. No. 5 of 1988 decided on 19.09.1992 whereby the appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realisation, to the respondents.2. Briefly stated it is case of the appellant/original respondents that respondent No. 1 is widow and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of deceased Shamrao Sudke. Shamrao Sudke was admittedly in the employment of the appellant-Board at Sub-Division, Selu.3. As per the original respondents, the deceased Shamrao was working as an Electric Operator/Lineman since 26.11.1974. On 16.01.1987 he was attached to urban area of Sub-Division, Selu. While he was on duty, he was directed by superior authority to attend a fuse call on the pole near ...
Smt. Bina Alhad Naik Vs. Shri Deu Keshav Naik Son of Keshav Naik,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR338; 2008(6)BomCR762; 2008(6)MhLj815
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The appellant instituted a suit in the Civil Court being Special Civil Suit No. 74/2001. The suit was filed with following prayers.(a) This Hon. Court be pleased to order the defendant No. 1 to hand over, to the plaintiff, the vacant possession of the said flats Nos. S-1, S-2, S-3 & S-4 in Block-A, on the second floor of the said building known as ' Deekay Plaza' on the property surveyed under No. 205, sub-division, No. 3, situated at Calangute, Bardez, Goa, after evicting the defendants Nos. 3 & 4 therefrom, in accordance with an agreement dated 22.8.1998 executed by and between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1; or in the alternative(aa) This Hon. Court be pleased to order the defendants jointly and/or severally to pay the sum of Rs. 23,10,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs ten thousand only), Rs. 15,00,000/- being the principal sum and Rs. 8,10,000/- being the interest upto the date of filing of the present suit, to...
Ved Prakash Malhotra and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Dattatr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2588
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicants seek quashing of order rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Aurangabad, taking cognizance of offences in a complaint case filed by the respondent No. 2, bearing R.C.C. No. 535/2008. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, issued process against present applicants for offences punishable under Section 405, 406, 417, 420 read with Section 34 of I.P. Code.2. At this stage, it is not necessary to elaborately set out the averments made in the complaint. Suffice it to say that the complainant claims to be Chairman of Centron Employees Cooperative Credit Society. The employees of Centron Company are members of the Credit Society. The Centron Company gave an undertaking to deduct amounts of instalments of loans granted to the members by the Credit Society from their monthly Pay Bills and to forward such amounts to the Credit Society. The Cooperative Credit Socie...
Ballarpur Paper Industries, a Company Registered Under the Indian Comp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR396; 2008(6)BomCR634; (2008)110BOMLR2741
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged an order passed by Additional District Magistrate, Chandrapur dated 14.09.1993 under Section 3(4) and 3 (a) (a) of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 (for short the 'Act') by which the petitioner is directed to pay entertainment tax and surcharge at the rate of 25% and 10 % on the total cost of Rs. 25,00,000/- incurred/spent for Dish Antenna, Cable Television pursuance to an amendment to the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 dated 25.12.1992 vide Ordinance No. XII of 1992, the Bombay Entertainments Duty (Amendment) Ordinance, 1992 and also challenged the constitutional validity of the Amended Act.2. By order dated 06.12.1993, this Court admitted the writ petition and granted an interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C), thereby has stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order and further recovery of the entertainment duty as per the impugned order.3. The petitioner is a registered Company, who is running a large sc...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »