Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax-iv Vs. the Solapur Dist. Coop Milk Prod ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Bom)253; [2009]315ITR304(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. These appeals are being disposed of by this common order as they involve the same questions of law which is framed as under:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,55,81,519/- by holding the said amount represented rate difference payment in the purchase of milk paid by the assessee even though the said payment of Rs. 1,55,81,519 was paid at the end of the previous year.A few facts may now be set out from the case of ' The Solapur District Cooperative Milk Producers and Process Union Ltd.' The facts in the other case are also same or similar except to the extent of supply of milk by non-members also.2. The assessee-societies are federal milk societies and its members are primary milk co-operative societies and the business of the assessee is to purchase milk from its members and other producers of milk at the rate i.e. similar to both the members and outside milk producers and...

The Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR232; 2009(4)MhLj929

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. In 1964 the petitioner was registered under the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). On 11.1.2007 the petitioner was converted into a multi State cooperative society. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Assistant Registrar cooperative societies and the Divisional Joint Registrar cooperative societies respectively under the MCS Act. Respondent No. 4, Mrs. Seema Ramesh Gharage is the principal debtor who had availed of facilities from the petitioner. Original respondent No. 5 and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are sureties in respect of the loan advanced by the petitioner to respondent no 4. Respondent Nos. 5(a) to (d) are the heirs of original respondent No. 5.2. By an order dated 11.7.2006 the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, respondent No. 2 dismissed the petitioners application for a recovery certificate under Section 101 of the MCS Act. The Petitioner challenged this order by filing a revision application under Section 154 of the MCS Act. This a...

Haresh P. Jashnani Vs. Satco Securities and Financial Services L.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR251; [2009]94SCL266(Bom)

Vazifdar S.J., J.1. The facts pertaining to the merits of this case are identical to the facts in Company Petition No. 751 of 2007.I have today passed an order in Company Petition No. 751 of 2007.2. In addition thereto, in this case, the company has raised the defence of limitation.3. The transactions in securities pertain to the period between 9.2.2005 to 18.3.2005. The petition was filed on 3.4.2008 i.e. after a period of more than three years. Mr. Sen, however, relied upon the ledger maintained by the company for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006.4. The first item in this ledger account is dated 1.4.2005. This however is the opening balance. Considering the nature of the account in this case it is a moot point as to whether the ledger can be said to constitute an open mutual and current account within the meaning of Article 1 of the Limitation Act. I will assume that the question whether an opening balance constitutes 'the last item admitted or proved as entered in the account' withi...

Ramchand J. Uttamchandani and Another Vs. Ms. Mrunalini Deshmukh-advoc ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President 1. Heard appellant in person. Mr. A.V. Patwardhan-Advocate for the respondent. Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum by order dated 26/3/2008 dismissed the consumer complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent, who is a practicing Advocate. In brief facts of the case are as under:- 2. Petitioner-appellant no.2 is a married daughter of appellant no.1. Appellant no.2 had filed Divorce petition against her husband in the Family Court no.5 at Bandra (East). Initially Advocate Ms.Chitra was engaged. At the fag end of 1999, Advocate Ms.Chitra was appointed as Public Prosecutor to conduct the matters in the High Court. She therefore, expressed her inability to conduct the divorce petition. Advocate Chitra was discharged. The services of respondent herein were hired. The appellants paid Rs.5000/- as fees to respondent. Appellant further agreed to pay Rs.150/- on each appearance. The re...

Ku. Sudarshani D/O Damduji Thool Vs. the Presiding Officer, Additional ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR9; 2009(4)BomLR1406; 2009(4)MhLj210

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner was, admittedly, working as Head Mistress of Savitribai Fule Vidyalaya, at Masod, dist. Wardha. The School is run by respondent No. 2-Savitribai Fule, Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. An enquiry was initiated by the Management against the present petitioner and in all twenty two charges were levelled against her. Enquiry Committee was constituted consisting of representative of Management, representative of delinquent Head Mistress and a State Awardee Head Master. After enqiry, report was submitted by said Committee. As per that report, representative of the Management on the enquiry committee held that out of twenty two charges, one charge was not proved while twenty one charges were proved. As per finding of the State Awardee Head Master, out of twenty two charges, only nine charges were proved while according to representative of the delinquent employee, no charge was proved. On the point of punishment also members of ...

Shri Madhukar Dattatraya Gholap Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR692; 2009(4)MhLj453

V.C. Daga, J.1. Pursuant to the order dated 18th October, 2008, this petition is being finally heard and disposed of at the stage of admission itself.2. The petitioner by this petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is seeking directions against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to ensure compliance of the directions contained in the communication dated 29th February, 2007 and 16th January, 2008, whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 3, the School Management was directed to appoint the petitioner as Head Master with effect from 1st June, 2007 with further direction to pay difference of salary and other emoluments together with arrears thereof to which he may be entitled to.The Facts:3. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner claimed to be appointed as Head Master of the school run by the respondent No. 3 Society consequent upon retirement of one Shri Khambekar on 31st March, 2007 since one of the posts of Head Masters out of two was to be treated u...

Satnam Overseas Ltd. Vs. M.V. Oocl Ability and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR275

Ganoo R.Y., J.1. The plaintiffs have filed, the suit for recovery of US Dollars 84870/-along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. By prayer Clause (b) plaintiffs want that vessels, namely defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 along with their hull, engine, tackle, machinery, boats, apparels and other paraphernalia be arrested till the plaintiffs' claim to the extent of US Dollars 84870 along with interest is satisfied. By prayer Clause (c) plaintiffs want that the aforesaid vessels namely defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 be detained condemned and sold and the sale proceeds thereof be applied towards plaintiffs' claim in the suit. Plaintiffs have also sought costs in terms of prayer Clause (h). Defendant No. 1 is the vessel by name M. v. OOCL ABILITY, defendant No. 2 is another vessel M. v. KUO WEI defendant No. 3 is vessel/vessels that are sister ships of defendant No. 1 or defendant No. 2 or any other vessel...

Pratik Bhupendra Vora Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR21; 2009(111)BomLR1543

S.B. Mhase, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith with consent of parties.3. The petitioner has approached to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the reservation of a subject of Oral Pathology and Microbiology for physically handicapped candidates.4. The petitioner is a graduate and he has obtained a degree in BDS. He desires to take an admission to Post Graduate Degree course, namely MDS. It is not disputed before this Court that he is a physically handicapped person and he is trying to seek an admission as handicapped person. As per the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation), Act 1995, there has to be reservation of 3% seats in favour of the physically handicapped category. So far as the reservation to be provided to the handicapped persons, the State is not disputing the percentage of seats to be provided for the post graduate admission, namely, 3% admissions ar...

Nerkar Madhukar Jagannath Head Master Nagarpalika Madhyamik Tantrik Vi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR4; 2009(111)BomLR1622; 2009(4)MhLj413

S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of an Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, dismissing his Appeal under Section 79(6) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. The Additional Commissioner has held that the dismissal of the petitioner is in accordance with law.2. The principal contention of the petitioner is that since he was working as a Teacher in a school known as Nagarpalika Madhyamik Tantrik Vidyalaya, Kopargaon, which was run by Kopargaon Municipal Council, the conditions of his services were governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Municipalities Act and therefore his dismissal which was effected without holding an enquiry and without taking prior approval of the Collector under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, is illegal.3. Admittedly, an enquiry has been held under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MEPS Act') read with Maharashtra Employees of Priva...

In Re: Suresh Manharlal Mehta of Mumbai, as a Director of Star Precisi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2009Bom171; 2009(3)BomCR686

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The insolvent who has taken out this Notice of Motion for various reliefs restricted his case to prayer (I) wherein he has sought an order of annulment of the insolvency under Section 21 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909.2. This Notice of Motion raises the following questions of law:(A). Does a debtor who is adjudged an insolvent fall within the meaning of the expression 'any person interested' used in Section 21 of the Presidency - Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 ?(B). Is a person interested entitled to maintain an application for annulment under Section 21 of the Presidency - Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 on the ground that he ought not to have been adjudged insolvent in cases where the order of adjudication is passed by or confirmed by the Appeal Court or the Supreme Court of India ?3. Mr. Raghwan submitted that the insolvent is entitled to an order annulling the insolvency, as the entire proceedings were based on an award made and published under the Arbitrat...