Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

Sudhakar T. Pendse Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN444(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The basic question raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal is justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3.17 crores as undisclosed income in the hands of the appellant.2. The Assessment year involved herein is the Block period from 1-4-1995 to 19-12-2001.3. The appellant is a Director of M/s. Nalani Properties Pvt. Ltd. On 19/12/2001 the premises of the petitioner as well as the premises of M/s. Nalini Properties Pvt. Ltd. and its accountant were searched. The search resulted in seizing the minutes of the Board of Directors of M/s. Nalini Properties (P) Ltd. held on 22/6/2000, wherein it was decided to share the profits in the ratio of 66% to the appellant and 34% to the company.4. It is pertinent to note that the appellant is signatory to the said Board resolution and in implementation of the said resolution, the 66% profit has been credited to the ledger account of the appellant in the books of the company for the previous year ending 31/3/2000 at Rs. 3,1...

Goaldas Deosthan Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR680

1. Heard Mr. S.V. Sohoni, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sonak, learned A.G.P. for respondents.2. Admit.3. Taken up for final hearing by consent.4. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Trust against the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the rejection of the appellant's exemption under Section 42(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The learned Single Judge rejected both the contentions of the petitioner.5. The petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that the application for exemption was wrongly rejected because no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant/petitioner. The learned Single Judge has found that the Secretary has considered the entire material supported by the Trust and there is, therefore, no merit in the contention.6. The second contention of the appellant/petitioner was that the application for exemption has been wrongly rejected under Section 47(2)(a) of the Act on the ground that t...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Alfred James Gamare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR329

Davare S.P., J.1. Perused the writ petition. Heard Shri. Goyanka, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Warad, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner is the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and respondent is working as Conductor with it. The factual matrix of the matter are as follows:3. The respondent was appointed as Conductor with the petitioner on 18.3.1981, but was dismissed from service on 30.10.1985 on account of misconduct of remaining absent from duty as per Clauses 10 and 38 of Schedule 'A' of Discipline and Appeal Procedure of the Corporation. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent No. 1 filed appeal before first Appellate Authority of the Corporation on 27.2.1989, contending that he was involved as an accused in Sessions Case No. 99/1985 and was detained in jail since 28.4.1985 up to 7.2.1989, he was convicted by the Sessions Court and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by judgment and Order dated 31.12.1985. He also...

M/S. Sabar Enterprises Vs. Mahalaxmi Agro-electricals and Pump House, ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal is filed by org. O.P.No.2 against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Forum Kolhapur in consumer complaint No.345/1998 wherein by allowing complaint, the Forum below directed O.P.No.2/manufacturer to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,398/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 06/12/1997 till actual payment and also directed to pay cost of Rs.100/- to the complainant. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :- Complainant had purchased from O.P.No.1 single phase submersible pump, which was manufactured by O.P.No.2 with 57 mtrs. Pipe and starter for Rs.18,200/- on 26/05/1997 and installed it on his borewell. Since there were complaints, 9to10 times he changed condenser, but complainant has facing problems. Ultimately, he returned the starter to the manufacturer. After two months, it was sent back duly repaired. But, complainant was having grievance. Hence, at the instance o...

Peter Joseph Pinto and Another Vs. Enkay Homes Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President 1. Complainants wanted to purchase a residential flat from the O.P. O.P. was ready to sell residential flat to the complainants. Agreed price of the flat was Rs.4,75,000/-. Complainants accepted the offer made by the builder and paid in all Rs.4,20,000/-. Payment was made in cash and cheque. The complainant obtained receipts from the builder. Possession was to be delivered within 24 months. In spite of substantial payment of consideration, the builder did not deliver possession of the flat though Agreement was registered. It is alleged by the complainants that builder hiked his demand. Builder asked the complainants to pay extra consideration for terrace. In absence of separate agreement, complainants refused to pay extra amount. Therefore the flat purchasers filed consumer complaint. 2. The consumer complaint was resisted by the builder. According to builder, there was an oral agreement with regard to extra payment for terrace. Separate ...

The Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Navi Mumba ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal arises out of order/award passed in consumer complaint no. 302/2006, Mr.Girish Kesarinath Patil v/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited by Additional District Consumer Forum, Thane (Forum below in short). The consumer complaint filed by the respondent/org.complainant/ Mr.Girish Kesarinath Patil since the lorry owned by him bearing no.Mh-04-BU-189 met with an accident on 22/09/2004 and therefore, he preferred insurance claim with the appellant/org.opp.party. Said claim was repudiated by opposite party /insurance company on the ground that the driver of the said vehicle was not holding any effective and valid during license. Upholding the claim, the Forum below awarded the same and feeling aggrieved thereby, the opposite party has preferred this appeal. Since there is delay in filing the appeal, M.A.No. 1736/2007 is also preferred to condone the delay. As far as delay in filing the appeal is concerned...

Shri Sebastiao Fernandes S/O Shri Milagres Fernandes Vs. Shri Nauso N. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1818

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is Complainant's appeal and is directed against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by Judgment dated 23-9-2005.2. The complaint was filed by the Complainant with the allegation that the Complainant had advanced an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the accused in the month of May, 2002 by way of a loan which the accused had promised to repay with interest at the rate of 18% per year. It was further alleged by the Complainant that inspite of oral request to the accused to repay the said loan along with interest the accused failed to repay the same but by way of repayment issued two cheques in favour of the Complainant due towards principal amount. The case of the Complainant was that cheque No. 615602 dated 5-5-2002 for Rs. 50,000/- drawn on Goa State Co-operative Bank, Margao, when presented for payment was returned dishonoured on 14-5-2002 with endorsement that the funds were insufficient whereupon the Complainant is...

Percy Shiavak Mistry Vs. Bennet Coleman and Company Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR242

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. On 10th June, 1994 an article was published in the Daily Edition of the Economic Times. The article, according to the plaintiff, contained statements which were defamatory. On 8th September, 1994, the plaintiff instituted proceedings before the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division in the U.K. for seeking damages for libel and an injunction in respect of the publication of the defamatory article. Service of those proceedings was effected on Mr. Umesh Chandrasekhar, who according to the plaintiff, was the resident representative of the defendant in Great Britain and authorized to accept service of process. The defendant did not enter appearance in the proceedings in London. On 5th June, 1995, an affidavit was filed by the plaintiff's Solicitor, Mr. Peter Edward Marrow, in the firm of Tanners in order to seek a direction that service effected upon Mr. Umesh Chandrasekhar was effective service upon the defendant and that a judgment be entered, in default of ...

Kawadu Latari Ramteke and anr. Vs. Suresh Latari Ramteke and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR253; 2009(4)MhLj446

Pangarkar C.L., J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chandrapur on an application (Exh. 100).3. The facts are as follows:The respondents/plaintiffs have instituted a suit for declaration, partition and separate possession. The petitioners/ defendants had filed a list of witnesses in the said, proceeding by way of defence. The evidence of the plaintiffs is recorded and they have been cross-examined by the defendants. The defendant's affidavit has been filed on record, but has not as yet been examined.4. The plaintiffs moved an application (Exh. 100) before the Court praying that it should direct the defendants to file affidavit of all the witnesses on record at a time. This application was opposed by the defendants. In spite of the opposition of the defendants, the learned Judge of the trial Court granted the application and the defendants feel ag...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Madhuri Travels

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009[15]STR241; [2009]23STT45

ORDER1. Revenue has come in appeal on the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CESTAT is justified in reducing the penalty in the case of the Respondent who has not been able to prove that there was reasonable cause for the failure ?(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CESTAT is justified in reducing the penalty to the level below the minimum penalty prescribed under the law, which comes to Rs. 40,364/-?Before the Tribunal, the only issue canvassed was whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has a power to reduce the penalty imposed under Section 76. Question as now framed, therefore, would not arise from the order of the Tribunal. Even otherwise considering Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, it is clear that there is power in the authority on showing reasonable cause, not to impose penalty or reduce the amount of penalty. That issue is fairly covered by the order of t...