Mumbai Court August 2008 Judgments

Ddit and Adit Vs. Balaji Shipping (Uk) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeals by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee for the years under consideration have been heard together and are being disposed off by the common order for the sake of convenience. The issue arising from the appeals of Revenue is whether assessee is eligible for the benefit of Article 9 of Indo-U.K. Treaty.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these appeals are these.The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in UK which was engaged in transportation of goods in international traffic by ships.M/s. NLS Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai was the agent of the non-resident in India. In respect of assessment year 2001-02, it filed the income-tax return declaring the total income of Rs. 3,00,25,837/- against the total freight receipt of Rs. 40,03,44,489/- by applying net profit rate of 7.5% prescribed Under Section 44B of Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). However, the tax liability was declared nil by claiming exemption under Article 9 of Indo-Uk Treaty. ...

Lachmabai W/O Hanumant and ors. Vs. Vithabai W/O Laxman Namawar and Ga ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR144; 2008(6)BomCR623; (2008)110BOMLR2759

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original defendants being aggrieved by the decree of partition and separate possession passed by the III Additional District Judge, Nanded while deciding Regular Civil Appeal No. 174 of 1981 on 17th June, 1987. By the said decree the learned Additional District Judge reversed the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 53 of 1974 decided on 30th March, 1981, whereby the original suit for partition was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge.2. Some of the facts giving rise to this appeal are admitted at this stage and it is preferable to set them out at the outset. . One Piraji Koli had two sons Hanumant and Maruti. Maruti is present appellant No. 2 who was also original defendant No. 2. He died on 31.07.1987 after decision of first appeal. Hanumant expired on 23.09.1968. Appellant No. 1 Lachmabai was his widow. She died pending this appeal on 11th June, 1999. Lachmabai had a son Laxman who has been missing since about 3-4 ...

Shemaroo Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Afzal Khan, Proprietor of Shaboo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3346; LC2008(3)340

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Leave under Rule 147 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules is granted to the plaintiff to take out a notice of motion in terms of draft notice of motion handed in. Plaintiffs to get the suit and notice of motion numbered.2. By consent of parties, notice of motion is taken up for hearing. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and for defendant Nos. 1 and 2.3. Plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and is carrying on business of trading in various feature films. Defendant No. 1 is the producer of feature film titled 'God Tusi Great Ho'. Defendant No. 2 is a Laboratory which has processed the said film and has custody of the negatives of the said film. Defendant No. 3 is a Company to whom the defendant No. 1 is alleged to have sold certain rights in the said film.4. Brief facts are as under:5. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 assigned broadcasting rights of the said film by an agreement of assignment dated 16/2/2007. In t...

Miss Smita Halarnkare Through Her Mother Mrs. Gokula Fadte Vs. Mr. Mah ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2797

N.A. Britto, J.1. The petitioner, a child born on 10/05/1999 to Smt. Gokula Fadte through her said mother, claimed maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month on the ground that the respondent who was distantly related to her mother was religiously married to her but had refused to register a civil marriage. The said application was allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 27/10/2006. That order came to be set aside in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 31/08/2007.2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion, and in my view, rightly that the failure to prove the marriage between the petitioner's mother and the respondent was no ground to discard her entire evidence. That is in tune with what the Apex Court has stated in Sumitra Devi (infra). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also noted that the respondent did not have the courage to step in the witness box to falsify the case of the petitioner and in that regard referre...

Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR546

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. In both these appeals since common question of law is raised, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts relevant for the decision on the point which is sought to be raised are that pursuant to the award passed by the learned arbitrator, the appellants filed arbitration petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called as 'the New Act' and the said petitions came to be dismissed by the orders dated 9-10-2006.3. The appellants thereupon preferred the appeals against the said orders. The Appeal No. 77 of 2007 was admitted on 11-10-2007, leaving open the issue as to whether the appellants would be liable to pay the Court fee under Schedule I, Article 1 and not under Schedule II, Article 13 as is sought to be paid by the appellants. As far as the Appeal No. 78 of 2007 is concerned, the same is yet to be admitted. However, in both the appeals the issue regarding the liabilit...

Prabha P. Shenal Vs. Crown Maritime Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR849; 2009(1)MhLj385

Vazifdar S.J., J.1. The defendant has filed this Notice of Motion to set-aside an ex parte decree dated 13.4.1999.2. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs. 86,14,908=14 ps. together with interest on the sum of Rs. 53,56,800/- at the rate of 30% p.a. The defendant contends that the writ of summons and the papers and proceedings of the suit were not served upon it. It is alleged that the same was obtained by the plaintiff dishonestly behind the back of the defendant. According to the defendant, its main administrative office was at Mavelikkara in the State of Kerala and that the plaintiff was aware of the same having in fact addressed correspondence to the defendant at that address.3. Despite the same, the plaintiff did not serve the defendant at its office in Kerala and sought to serve it at its Mumbai Office which the plaintiff knew was closed for shifting. The plaintiffs letters were therefore returned unclaimed.There have been several proceedings including Criminal proceedings bet...

Hitesh Kishorechand Raithatha and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ439

ORDERV.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this petition, petitioners impugn correctness, propriety and legality of charge framed against them in Sessions Case No. 86/2003 pending on file of learned 4th ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna. They also challenge order rendered by learned ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge below their application (Exh-66) seeking discharge. 3y the impugned order dated 29th September, 2006, their application (Exh-66) for the discharge to the extent of offence punishable under Section 18 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 and under Section 328 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code, came to be dismissed.2. Admittedly, the petitioners are Medical Practitioners. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the allegations made by the complainant (deceased Pandit Kulthe). Suffice it to say that on 21st April, 2000, wife of deceased complainant, namely, Smt. Shantabai was admitted in the hospital of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 4, which is styled as 'Jaishree Hospi...

Ramdas Thanu Dessai and ors. Vs. State of Goa and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR153; 2009(2)BomCR218

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. The petitioners challenge the acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', dated 24-1-2006 along with the declaration under Section 6 dated 20-12-2006 on various grounds including the ground that the said notification and the declaration are bad in law since the acquisition is proposed by the State of Goa which is not the appropriate Government to acquire the land for the purpose of Union of India considering the provisions of law comprised under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 3(ee) of the said Act. On the other hand, the notification and the declaration are sought to be defended on the ground that the acquisition is not exclusively for the purpose of the Union and, therefore, the appropriate Government is the State Government.2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the notification and the declaration under Section 4 and Section 6 respectively ...

Smt. Suman Lahanu Wakchaure, (Mrs. Suman Shivaji Jorwekar) Vs. the Sta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR695; 2009(1)BomCR216; (2008)110BOMLR2690

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common order, as the issues involved are identical. With the consent of parties, Rule in both the petitions. With the consent of parties, heard forthwith.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 6081/2007 was in employment of respondent No. 4, and has since superannuated. By the present petition, the petitioner who appears in person prays that her pay be fixed according to law and the Management be directed to give arrears of salary alongwith 18% p.a. interest, as also provident fund, gratuity, pension and other pensionary benefits as per law on par with permanent employees of grantable schools, as also to give service book with complete details. There are some other details which are not been gone into. The petitioner will be known as the 'Teacher' and respondent No. 4 as the 'Employer'.3. Writ Petition No. 7171/2007 is filed by the Employer challenging certain orders passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, A...

Murlidhar S/O Bhimraoji Sable and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR200; 2008(6)MhLj838

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. The appellants challenge the judgment and order passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, in Land Acquisition Case No. 110/97, dated 17th July, 2003, by which he dismissed the reference of the appellants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.Part of the land of the appellants from P.H. No. 36-A, Tahsil Narkhed, District Nagpur, of village Ambada, Kh. No. 164 and 165/2 was acquired for construction of the road. Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO for short) declared his award on 15-9-1995. The compensation accorded by SLAO was accepted by the appellants under protest. According to the appellants, the SLAO did not value the land properly and did not award the compensation as per prevailing market price in that locality. They also felt that the horticulture use of the said land was not considered and therefore, the compensation was granted at very low rate. As such, they preferred an application for Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act...