Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR814; 2009(4)MhLj79
Chandiwal K.U., J.1. Heard.2. The dismissal of suit for recovery of Rs. 3750/- dated 10.1.2000 and first appeal on 19.3.2002 is the subject of appeal.3. The short question is : Does a right of second appeal accrue to the plaintiff in spite of inhibition envisaged in Section 102 C.P.C. by amendment dated 1.7.2002.4. The Counsel canvassed, Section 102 C.P.C. does not spell to be prospective and since appeal is a continuation, the right shall exist.5. It is not a controversy that appeal is continuation of original proceedings, to seek redressal, unless and until it dictates contrary. By virtue of Section 16(2)(b) of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, contemplating repeal and savings, the proviso of Section 102 of the Principal Act, as substituted by Section 5 of the Act, shall not apply to or affect any appeal which had been admitted before the commencement of Section 5, and every such appeal shall be disposed off as if Section 5 had not come into force.6. The legislative intent beh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR421
Bhatia J.H., J.1. Respondent No. 1 was first appointed as Assistant Teacher on temporary basis for the period from 1.7.1996 to 30.4.1997 by Order dated 1.7.1996. After that academic session, by Order dated 1.5.1997 she was appointed on probation of two years with effect from 2.5.1997. The appointment of respondent No. 1 on probation was also approved by the Education Officer. However, even before one year's service was completed, during the probation period on 29.4.1998 the petitioner issued an order terminating services of respondent No. 1 on the ground that her work was found to be unsatisfactory. She was given one month's salary in lieu of this notice along with that termination order and thus her services came to be terminated with effect from 30.4.1998. That order was challenged by respondent in Appeal No. STC/50/1998 before the School Tribunal. According to her, the termination order was contrary to law, arbitrary and out of vindication and violating the principles of natural jus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR823; 2009(111)BomLR1366; 2009BusLR315(Bom); [2009]178TAXMAN247(Bom)
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This tax appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench in ITA No. 244/PNJ/2005 dated 2nd February, 2006. The Tribunal by the impugned Order partly allowed the appeal filed by the present respondent.2. While admitting this appeal, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that sum of Rs. 49.06 lakhs which has remained unpaid without being claimed by the Debenture holders till the assessment year 1999-2000, was income of the Appellant for the assessment year 1999-2000 solely based on the entry in the books of the Appellant made in the year 1998?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that redemption of redeemable debentures, issued in 1988 was due in 1995 and thereafter it became income of the Appellant, despite the proviso to Section 205C of the companies Act, according...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR410
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Court of Solapur dated 28th August, 1992 in Civil Appeal No. 224 of 1986 allowing the Appeal preferred by the Respondents/landlords and decreeing the suit for possession with direction to the Petitioners to deliver possession of the suit premises to the Respondents on or before 31st October, 1992.2. Briefly stated, the Respondents filed Suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 412 of 1980 in the Court of Solapur against the predecessor of the Petitioners Shri Ganpati Andappa Mulage, the original tenant-defendant for recovery of rent and possession of the suit property being one shop premises admeasuring 5' x 9' situated in Saraf Bazar in Solapur city on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the Plaintiffs for their personal use and occupation. The said suit however, was dismissed by the Trial Court on the finding that the Plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2009)222CTR(Bom)634; [2009]316ITR98(Bom); [2009]182TAXMAN198(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. In both the references the questions are Identical. WT Ref. No. 28 of 1998 pertains to asst. yrs. 1976-77, 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1982-83 and WT Ref. No. 42 of 1998 refers to the asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81.2. The Tribunal has referred the following questions at the instance of the Revenue:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the IAC, Assessment Range-VII(A) had no jurisdiction over wealth-tax cases of the assessee even though the case of the assessee was validly transferred to the IAC, Assessment Range-VII(A) by the CIT, Bombay City-VII, Bombay, by a notification under Section 127 of the IT Act, 1961?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that under Section 8 of the WT Act, the officer having jurisdiction under the IT Act had to perform the functions under the WT Act also, particularly when the transfer of income-tax case under Section 127...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2009)223CTR(Bom)288; [2009]316ITR94(Bom)
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Both these appeals preferred by the assessee raise the following substantial questions of law. Hence both these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2. Appeals raise the following substantial questions of law:I. Whether on the facts and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in not deciding the issue in the Explanations to Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983.II. Whether on the facts and in the law the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in not accepting that the principal business of the appellant is warehousing which was accepted by the AO.III. Whether on facts and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in holding that merely because the rental income derived therefrom was shown under the head 'Income from house property', it becomes the asset of the appellant?The assessee is in the business of warehousing. These appeals are in respect of the order passed in respect of asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99.3. There were two appeals before the Tribunal being WTA Nos. 257 and 25...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR266
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner, a distributor of Bharat Petroleum Company Limited engaged in the business of distribution and sale of Liquid Petroleum Gas cylinders and other allied products, claims that they provide service to approximately 12,000 consumers in the JuhuVile Parle Development Scheme. In the year 1995, the Petitioner took on lease plot No. 70D at JuhuVile Parle Bus Station Circle near Bhaskar Garage, Juhu, Mumbai admeasuring about 300 sq. mtrs. belonging to the Respondent. After negotiations, vide letter No. JVPD/Gen/153/1829/BBL dated 10th April 1995, the Petitioner was allotted lease of the said plot for the purpose indicated in the said letter of lease. In furtherance to the said lease, the Petitioner paid the charges. Vide letter dated 25th April 1995 the Petitioner, upon making payment of Rs. 2,70,550/was called upon to take possession of the said plot. The possession of the said plot was taken by the Petitioner on 15th May 1995. According to the Petitioner,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR1163
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, by his judgment dated 25/26/27th October, 2004 has convicted three accused viz. (i) Geeta Keshav Shankar @ Geeta Mukesh Kharwa, (ii) Gauri Manga Kharwa @ Wagheri, and (iii) Santosh Kanti Kharwa for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.2. Aggrieved from the finding of guilt and sentence awarded to the respective accused, Geeta Mukesh Kharwa, Accused No. 1 and Gauri Manga Kharwa, Accused No. 2 have filed Criminal Appeal No. 968 of 2006, while accused No. 3 Santosh Kanti Kharwa, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2006 before this Court, inter alia, claiming acquittal, but primarily on the following grounds:a) There is undesirable and unexplained delay of one month in registering the FIR;(b) The judgment of the Trial C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2009]150CompCas898(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petitioner has sought an order of winding up of the company, inter alia, on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. According to the petitioner, the company is indebted to it in a sum of Rs. 7,58,52,000.2. Two identical leave and licence agreements, both dated April 3, 2008, were entered into between the petitioner and the company. Under each of the agreements, the petitioner agreed to give and the company agreed to take on leave and licence basis, an office unit, belonging to the petitioner, ad measuring 3,500 sq. ft. together with three car parking spaces. The premises and the car parking spaces are in the same building 'Solitaire'. The terms and conditions of the agreements are identical.3. Under Section IV, Clause 1 of each of the agreements, an aggregate sum of Rs. 10,53,500 was payable per month towards the use of the licensed premises, the furniture, fittings, equipment, etc., therein, and the car parking spaces in the compound of the building. Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR836
N.A. Britto, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner who was a Head Constable, General Duty (HC/GD) in CISF (Central Industrial Security Force) and posted at MPT Headland, Sada, Goa, and who has been dismissed from service after holding an inquiry by Order dated 18-10-2002 under the provisions of CISF Rules, 2001 by the Disciplinary Authority/Senior Commandant, CIFS Unit, MPT, Goa. An appeal filed against the said order came to be dismissed by Order dated 24-12-2002 of the Deputy Inspector General (Western Zone) and a revision filed also came to be dismissed by Order dated 10-6-2003 of the Inspector General/SWS, CISF in the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for quashing the aforesaid orders and for a further direction for his reinstatement.2. We have heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties at length. There is no dispute that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in CIFS and worked at various places from...
Tag this Judgment!