Mumbai Court August 2008 Judgments
Shashikant M. Sable Vs. Advani Oerlikon Limited a Company Incorporated ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR839; 2009(4)BomCR942; [2008(119)FLR537]; 2008(6)MhLj833
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The present Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30th November 2007 wherein while examining Standing Order 25(4) of the Model Standing Order, without deciding the legal controversy, the learned Single Judge took the view that no prejudice had been caused to the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') by recording the statement and testimony of the witnesses in English inasmuch as the workman was represented by defence representative who was expected to take care of the interest of the workmen during the enquiry proceedings.2. This view of the learned Single Judge has been challenged in the present Appeal primarily on the ground that Standing Order 25(4) is mandatory and its non-compliance in any form shall vitiate the departmental enquiry. The provision being mandatory in nature, the principle of substantial compliance and requirement of proof of prejudice as a condition precedent is not applicable to these p...
Tag this Judgment!Solid Containers Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Spl. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Bom)455; [2009]308ITR417(Bom); [2009]178TAXMAN192(Bom)
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench dated 31st December, 2001 wherein the Tribunal has rejected the contention raised by the Assessee that the loan was a capital receipt and has not been claimed as deduction from the taxable income as expenses and, therefore, did not represent income under Section 41(1) and, thus, sustained the addition of Rs. 6,86,071. The Assessing Officer had made the addition on the ground that the credit balance returned back is the income of the Assessee in view of the fact that it is again directly arising out of the business activity and the same was liable to be taxed under Section 28 of the Act. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the impugned order suffers from error of law as well as of appreciation of facts. While relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra v. Commissioner of Income tax : [2003]261ITR501(Bom) , it w...
Tag this Judgment!Ornate Traders Private Limited (Successor to Kamu Metals Private Limit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: [2009]312ITR193(Bom); [2008]16STT263
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By this order, we propose to dispose of 44 Notice of Motions, all filed in the Income Tax Appeals preferred against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Notice of Motion Nos. 2281 of 2008 in Income Tax Appeal (Lodging) No. 1814 of 2008 has been filed by the Assessee while remaining 43 Notice of Motions have been filed by the Commissioner(s) of Income Tax. The prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeals vary from 18 days to 1474 days. Normally, we would have proceeded to deal with each application separately but the grounds for condonation of delay noted by Commissioner(s) of Income Tax are more or less common and, in fact, in most of the cases identical, hence we propose to discuss some of them in detail. Notices of Motion Nos. 2330 of 2008, 1898 of 2008, 2335 of 2008 and 2059 of 2008 have been filed by the Commissioner(s) of Income Tax while Notice of Motion Nos. 2281 of 2008 has been filed by the Assessee.2. There is no dispute to the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Om Shri Sai Developers Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority Through the C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR682; 2009(1)BomCR718; (2008)110BOMLR3063
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has primarily amongst others made the following prayers:(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order calling for the records and proceedings relating to the proceedings and after perusing the legality, validity and propriety of the proceedings and the order bearing No. SRA/CEO/LA/HCO130/ Pandit/61/08 dated 4th March, 2008 passed by the Respondent No. 1 herein, be pleased to quash and set aside and reverse the same.(b) Pending the bearing and final disposal of this appeal, the impugned Order passed by the Respondent No. 1 bearing No. SRA/CEO/LA/HCO130/ Pandit/61/08 dated 4th March, 2008 be stayed.(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a order of injunction restraining the Respondent No. 3 from carrying out any construction on suit land bearing C.T.S. No. 6(pt), 7, 7/1 to 3,9,9/1 to 4...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shantibai K. Vardhan and ors. Vs. Ms. Meera G. Patel and Mr. Kira ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR212; (2008)110BOMLR3055
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellants are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants. For the sake of convenience of the parties, they shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.2. The plaintiffs have challenged an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15th January, 2008 in Chamber Summons No. 1689 of 2007. By the said order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the Chamber Summons which is taken out by the defendants seeking liberty to lead evidence and to place on record all documents referred to in the affidavit of documents which was filed by the defendants. Grievance of the plaintiffs is that after they had led their evidence, the defendants had specifically informed the Court that they did not wish to lead any evidence. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that after having taken a stand not to lead evidence, it was not open for the defendants to subsequently file application seeking permission of the court to lead evidence. In o...
Tag this Judgment!Friends Cooperative Housing Society Limited Duly Registered Under the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR815; (2008)110BOMLR3204
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the action of allotment of their land by Nagpur Improvement Trust (for short 'NIT'), a public body, to the public institutions and public trust being public utility plots. The points and submissions are common, interlinked and, therefore, this common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 934/94, as averred, the petitioner is a cooperative housing society, which has developed various layouts and other projects successfully. The petitioner society has purchased land admeasuring about 13.45 acres comprised in Khasra Nos. 130/1, 3, 4 and 5 of Mouza Parsodi (Bhamti) in Malik Makbuza rights. The land is covered by the Bhamti Parsodi scheme of NIT.3. The petitioner society applied to NIT for developing the said land and also gave an undertaking to agree to have the layout of the land as per plans, suggestions and directions of NIT. Pursuant to the undertaking given by the petitioner society, NIT approved the layout of the entire land admeasuring...
Tag this Judgment!Rasiklal S. Mardia Vs. Icici Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR759; [2009]89SCL303(Bom)
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. ICICI Bank Limited filed Suit No. 434 of 2003 against Maradi Chemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') for recovery of their dues in their capacity as Debenture Trustees. In the said Suit, Notice of Motion No. 364 of 2003 was taken out for interim reliefs including for appointment of a Court Receiver. The Court vide its order dated 13-8-2004 allowed the Notice of Motion and appointed the Court Receiver' with certain directions. In furtherance to the orders of the Court, the Court Receiver took possession of the property on 2-3-2005. After some time, proceedings against the Company were taken out and it was ordered to be wound up by the Gujarat High Court visits order dated 3-8-2005. There were complaints of pilferage of the movable properties of the Company and the Court Receiver of this Court held a meeting at the site on 27-4-2007 and it was noticed that certain materials were missing and even an inventory was prepared. There were large mach...
Tag this Judgment!Mangla Homes (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: [2009]182TAXMAN55(Bom)
A.P. Deshpande, J.1. This appeal is filed by the assessee taking exception to an order passed by the Tribunal, Murnbai Bench dismissing the appeal directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. According to the (sic) appellant is a private limited company incorporated with the object of dealing in properties. The main object of the company as contained in the memorandum of association was to carry on business of dealing and investment in properties, flats, warehouses, shops, commercial and residential houses. The ancillary object was to carry on business of leasing, hire purchase, renting, selling, reselling or otherwise dispose of all forms of moveable or immovable properties and assets including buildings, godowns, warehouses and real estate of any kind. The assessee purchased flats for trading purposes at the cost of Rs. 4 crores. At the time of purchase, the building needed major repairs and according to the assessee as it expected that the prices of flats would...
Tag this Judgment!Siddhappa Andappa Andolgi and Basavraj Siddhappa Andolgi Vs. the State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3043
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Vithal and Bhimsha were brothers. Both had agricultural holdings in the village of Galorgi in the Taluka of Akkalkot in the District of Solapur. Vithal had two sons, Kashinath and Vishwanath. Kashinath has a son by the name of Shivlingappa. Bhimsha died and was survived by his wife Sugalabai. The accused resided in a portion of the Wada in which Sugalabai also resided. The accused were related to the complainant. The relations between the two sides were strained on account of certain disputes arising out of the agricultural holding. The case of the prosecution is that Shivlingappa (P.W. 6), who was about 13 years old, used to accompany his grandfather Vithal to the agricultural field where they stayed during the night. On 17th August 2003, Vishwanath, PW 7, went to serve a tiffin of food to Suglabai between 9 and 9.30 p.m. when Appellant No. 1, Sidhappa abused him. At 9 p.m. on the same day Shivlingappa, PW 6, went to the field together with his grandfather - the...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Bhikashet Gandhi (Deceased by Heirs Sarojini Laxman Gandhi and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR775; (2008)110BOMLR2957
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Ratnagari dated 22nd November, 1991 in Civil Appeal No. 230 of 1985. The Appellate Court reversed the Decree of possession passed by the Civil Judge, Malvan on deputation at Chiplun dated 31st August, 1985 in Regular Civil Suit No. 29 of 1984 passed in favour of the Petitioners/landlord.3. Briefly stated, the premises in question are two rooms admeasuring 35 x 10 ft. bearing Municipal House No. 808(B) having City Survey No. 6885 at Village-Chiplun. The case of the Petitioner/landlord was that the Respondent was monthly tenant inducted in the said premises on monthly rent of Rs. 62/- and Rs. 5/- by way of permitted increases. According to the Petitioner, the tenant failed to pay the monthly rent with effect from 1st June, 1983 consisting of standard rent and permitted increases in resp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »