Mumbai Court January 2009 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. Srishti Securities (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Bom)551; [2009]183TAXMAN159(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The assessee acquired shares in the financial year 1993-94. They were shown as investment in the balance sheet as on 31-3-1994. In the subsequent balance sheets as on 31-3-1995 and 31-3-1996 they were shown as stock-in-trade.2. The object Clause of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the assessee show their main object as under:To purchase, acquire, hold, sell, invest, dispose and otherwise deal in shares, stocks, debentures, stock, Government securities, bonds, units of any company or other authority supreme municipality or local.The assessee held the funds which were utilized for acquiring shares by way of investment as well as by way of stock-in-trade. The value of the shares held as investment as on 31-3-1997 was Rs. 2,59,22,692 and the cost of shares held as stock-in-trade on the same day amounted to Rs. 18,56,250. The assessee had borrowed funds on which the assessee paid total interest of Rs. 14,37,255 for which deduction was claimed under Section 57...
Anandrao S/O Marotrao Kharabe Vs. Madhuri Posing Herself to Be W/O. An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR832
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The husband has filed these two Second Appeals challenging the judgment dated 19.11.1993 delivered in Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 14 and 15 of 1991 by the Additional District Judge, Bhandara. By this common judgment, the Additional District Judge has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent . wife before it and dismissed the appeal filed by the husband in the matter.2. The court of 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara was approached in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 2/1984 by respondent wife under Section 23 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 claiming judicial separation, under Section 37, claiming permanent alimony and maintenance. She also moved application under Section 38 and claimed custody of her son. The appellant husband who was respondent in that matter pointed out that vide Exh.61 the marriage between the parties was dissolved as per the customs prevalent in Kunbi community and hence there was no marriage subsisting. The Trial Court framed vario...
Arunodaya Coal Agency, Through Proprietor Kishor S/O Daulatraj Sankhla ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR954
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, referred to as 'Act' hereafter, appellant contractor challenges the judgment dated 3/7/2006 delivered by the Principal District Judge, Nagpur in Misc Civil Application 157/2004 filed before him under its Section 34 for quashing and setting aside of order dated 28/1/2004 passed by sole arbitrator accepting the defence of present respondent employer WCL that because of accord and satisfaction there was no arbitrable dispute between parties. Sole Arbitrator has delivered the order dated 28/1/2004 after appreciation of evidence produced by parties and after hearing the arguments. The parties point out from various earlier orders of this Court that appeal is to be heard finally at admission stage. Accordingly 'Admit'. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent.2. It is not in dispute that contractor was successful in tender process for work regarding excavation, transportatio...
Vastalabai Panditrao Lad and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR772
Hardas P.V., J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside order dated 7th March, 2007 passed by respondent No. 2 - Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune and has also prayed for declaring that the reservation No. 1 for open space in the development plan of respondent No. 2 Municipal Council, Georai has lapsed.2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus:The petitioners claim to be owners and possessors of agricultural land at Survey No. 12 of Georai (town), District Beed, which came to be designated as reservation No. 1 (open space) in the development plan of respondent No. 3 Municipal Council, Georai and which plan came to be finalised by respondent No. 2 Director of Town Planning, Pune by notification dated 31st December, 1997. Since the date of reservation no concrete and effective steps had been initiated for acquisition of the said la...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Manikrao Sahabrao Cha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ403Bom
S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Presiding Officer, IInd Labour Court, Pune, setting aside the respondent No. 1's dismissal and directing payment of back wages at the rate of 50% from June 8, 1992 till May 31, 1996.2. The respondent No. 1 was charged with driving after having consumed alcohol. It may be noted that consumption of alcohol by a Driver is a stated misconduct vide Clause 42 of the Acts of Misconducts under Schedule 'A' of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure for employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, which reads as follows:SCHEDULE 'A'(Acts of Misconducts)42. Found to have consumed or being alcohol, liquor, intoxicants or any type of drug while on duty and/or outside the duty hours within the premises or vehicles of the Corporation.3. The respondent No. 1 was found having consumed alcohol to the extent that the reading in blood-test showed 0.069 mg. The respondent No. 1 appeared unable to stand properly and while reversi...
Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. Paints Employees' Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ703Bom
1. By this appeal the appellant challenges the order dated August 22, 2003 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 577/2001. That writ petition was filed by the present appellant challenging the order dated January 30, 2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 68/1990. By the order that was impugned before the learned single Judge, it was declared by the Industrial Court that the appellant-company has committed unfair labour practice under Items 1(c) and 2(b) of Schedule II and Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act 1971 and has directed the appellant company to pay to the concerned members of the complainant-union, the amount as per settlement dated August 22, 1989 by deducting Rs. 2000/- for factory workers and Rs. 1750/- for staff members.2. The facts that are relevant and material for deciding this appeal are that some time in the year 1987 there was a lockout declared by the appellant-company and thereafte...
Executive Engineer Vs. Bhagwan Yashwanta Kulkarrni and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR493; 2009(4)MhLj593
Chandiwal K.U., J.1. These second appeals, being arising out of common judgment of Civil Judge, Senior Division, dt. 27.2.2004 and the common Order dt. 13.10.2008 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal by the learned Principal District Judge, Beed, are heard together. The parties are referred by their original status.2. The acquiring body, the Executive Engineer, is in the Second Appeal, to challenge the judgment and decree referred above, whereby invoking provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, the suits of respective plaintiffs for award of interest were decreed.3. In the award passed in File No. 35/LNQ/SR/95 dated 2.7.2001, possession was taken on 1.3.1993, compensation of the land has been actually paid to the plaintiffs on 13.12.2001. It is also not in controversy that the land owners had moved reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and respective references are allowed, award is passed in favour of the land owners/plaintiffs. In the award passed by the...
Mrs. Dosibai Nanabhoy Jeejeebhoy, Represented by (Byram Nanabhoy Jeeje ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR476; 2009(111)BomLR1014
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1991, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pune, in Special Civil Suit No. 287 of 1983. By the impugned judgment and decree, the suit filed by the original plaintiff has been dismissed by the learned trial judge.2. The plaintiff is the original owner of land situate at 11, Staveley Road, Pune Cantonment, along with the main bungalow and various outhouses, servants' quarters etc., hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'. The aforesaid suit was filed for a declaration that the suit property vests exclusively with the plaintiff and the defendant has no right, title or interest in the ownership thereon. The plaintiff has also prayed for a declaration that the defendant has no right of resumption in respect of the suit property and the resumption notice dated 22nd October, 1970 and the letter dated 6th November, 1970 are invalid, void and of no legal effect. A furt...
Shashikant Narottam Lade, (Since Deceased Through His L.Rs. Smt. Sheel ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MhLj631
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioners who are legal heirs of Original Tenant, have challenged the impugned Judgment and Order whereby the Appellate Court by reversing the trial Court Judgment and Order, granted decree of eviction in favour of the Respondent's legal heirs of the original landlord.2. The reasoning given by the Appellate Court is based upon the material available on record including the evidence which need no interference, as the Appellate Court right in holding that the Original tenant was defaulter and not ready and willing to pay the rent, though demanded by a statutory notice dated 1st April, 1976. The trial Court was wrong in holding that there was no proper service of the notice, though held that he was in arrears of rent of suit premises from 1st October, 1975. The Respondents / Landlords had sent notices including of his advocate. The notices were sent by registered post acknowledgement due and a copy was sent under certificate of posting also, apart from ordinary ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Lata Shantilal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Bom)778
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of Tribunal and they have raised the following question:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in deleting the penalty observing that as the assessee had not filed return of income on the ground that assessee had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income?2. In the instant case, what is relevant are the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) which reads as under:(1) If the AO or the CIT(A) or the CIT in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person:(a)...(b)...(c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, or,(d)...he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty,3. Explanation 3 to Section 271 reads as under:Where any person who has not previously been assessed under this Act, fails, without reasonable cause, to furnish within the period specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 153 a return...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »