Mumbai Court June 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Grindwell Norton Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]318ITR172(Bom)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. All office objections are overruled. The appeal taken up for hearing on admission by consent of the parties.2. The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the interest received on overdue payment in business is deductible under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Govinda Choudhury and Sons : [1993] 203 ITR 881 and also of this Court in the case of CIT v. Bhansali Engineering Polymars Ltd. : [2008] 306 ITR 194 (Bom).3. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs....

Pralhad Vilas Shinde and Another Vs. Ebrahim A.Gadkari and Others

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: Heard Adv. Mr. U.B. Wavikar for the petitioners. He wants to withdraw the petition, since he wants to file a fresh revision petition with necessary corrections. Allowed to withdraw. Hence, the following order:- Order: 1. Revision Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Pronounced and dictated in open court. 4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties....

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Deputy Engineer, L.M.i. Division ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR253; 2009(111)BomLR2800

S.P. Davare, J.1. Perused. 2. By the present four Writ Petitions, the petitioners have challenged the common judgment and order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Solapur in respective Complaints (ULP) Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 of 1987 on 7.12.1995 thereby directing the reinstatement of respective complainants with continuity of service and full back wages. 3. The factual matrix, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1 in the present Writ Petitions i.e. Original complainants filed complaints under Section 28 with Item Nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, the MRTU and PULP Act) before the learned Member, Industrial Court, Solapur, with prayers to reinstate the said complainants with continuity of service and full back wages. The Complaint Nos. , Writ Petition Nos. and Name of the complainants are as follows : Complaint No. Writ Petition No. Name of Complainant...

PravIn Vijaykumar Taware, Vs. the Special Executive Magistrate and the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3166

Bilal Nazki, J.1. Number of cases are coming before this Court complaining of an abuse of powers by the Executive Magistrate under Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code. These cases come from the cities or bigger towns. This Court has not seen a case coming from a remote village. Obviously, the people living in such areas do not find it possible to reach the High Court. Therefore, this Court presumes that these powers may be abused with impunity as the persons suffering under these areas may not be able to reach the High Court. The power of the Executive Magistrate are exercised in the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Assistant Commissioner of Police InCharge of the area. There is always a clash of interest between a Police Officer In Charge of an area and the Magistrate exercising the magisterial power within the same area. We had earlier also expressed a desire that the Government should consider delegating these powers either to Judicial Magistrates or at least to officials of t...

Latika Gorakh Mate Vs. the Secretary, Rural Education Society,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2884

A.V. Potdar, J.1. By present petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the School Tribunal, Latur dated 18.06.2008 in Appeal No. 29/2007 thereby allowing respondent No. 1 to conduct enquiry against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties heard finally at the stage of admission.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. The facts, which gave rise to file the present writ petition and certain undisputed facts, can be summarized as follows:a) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the school run by respondent No. 1, on 01.08.1985. She is a permanent employee. The petitioner was promoted as a Head Mistress on 11.06.1996. A dispute in respect of difference of salary was pending before the Education Officer (Respondent No. 2) and the petitioner, as the petitioner had taken a different stand than that of the Educat...

Narayan S/o Sadhu Suryawanshi and Vs. the State of Maharashtra through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2923

A.V. Potdar, J.1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have challenged the judgment and order dated 24/10/2008 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal No. 218/2008 by which the petitioner No. 1 & 2 were declared as disqualified under Section 14(J)(3) of The Bombay Village Panchayat Act of 1958.2. Rule.3. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.4. Factual matrix which gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized as follows. Petitioners were elected as Member of Gram Panchayat Dabhad, which election was held on 06/09/2005. Both these seats were reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidate. It further appears that about the election of these petitioners, objection was raised by the 4th respondent before The Collector alleging that petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No...

Umesh Shrikant Shetye Vs. the Collector and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR368

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent of the parties heard forthwith.2. The petitioner was a Councilor of the Ratnagiri Municipal Council. Elections were held to the Ratnagiri Municipal Council on 19th November, 2006. The Petitioner contested on the party symbol of Nationalist Congress Party (hereinafter referred to as N.C.P.). The Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 were also elected on the ticket of the same party. After elections, a meeting was convened by the party where all the 12 Councilors met and according to the Petitioner they agreed that the petitioner would be the leader of the N.C.P. Municipal party. Accordingly, the party General Secretary Shri Gurunath Kulkarni by letter dated 20th December, 2006 wrote to the Respondent No. 1-Collector informing that the petitioner is the leader of the N.C.P. Municipal Party. Elections were to be held for the post of President and the petitioner was nominated to contest the same. The Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 were, however, not in favour of the no...

Vivek Damodar Malvi (Dr.) Vs. Vaidehi Vivek Malvi

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR363

Joshi A.H., J.1. This is an appeal by father who has suffered a decree for payment of maintenance. Operative part of the decree reads as follows:In terms of prayer Clauses (ii) and (in) below plaint para 13, it is ordered that defendant shall pay Rs. 6,000/p.m. to the plaintiff from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 4/7/2003 till she attains majority.2. Father's appeal against this decree has been dismissed by the first Appellate Court. The father is before this Court in the present second appeal.3. The question agitated before this Court as substantial question of law is as follows:The judgment of the first Appellate Court which is narrative in nature and is not adjudicative, since the Appellate Court has failed to formulate the questions which fell for determination, which exercise is a mandate of law under Rule 31 of Order XXXXI of the Civil Procedure Code.4. Failure to comply with Rule 31 of Order XXXXI C.P.C. is undoubtedly a substantial question of law.5. The question which thi...

Satnam Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. M/S. Saranga Estate Pvt. Ltd. ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr.Dayanandan N.K., Advocate for the complainants. There is inordinate delay of 3 years 2 months in filing this consumer complaint. The ground mentioned as per Para 3 is that all the while they tried to compromise with the builder and therefore delay is caused. Reason given is quite unsatisfactory. We are therefore of the view that application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. We make it clear at this point that if any regular remedy is available either with the Civil Court or elsewhere, the complainant may pursue the same. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:- Order: 1. Misc. Appl. No.289/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. Consequently, complaint is not entertainable as barred by limitation. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

M/S. Chandhaok Bearing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Dena Bank Branch Office a ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Ms. Mamta Singh, Advocate h/f. Mr. Talreja, Advocate for complainant and Ms. Pallavi Khangaonkar, Adv. for O.P./Bank. Perused the complaint. In the instant case, O.P./Bank had purchased a demand draft No.408498 dated 07/08/2008 for US $ 1,27,000.00 issued by Al Amin Consultant through their banker-Qatar national Bank. However, said draft remained unpaid with the reason Obsolete Routing Number. Thus, it was revealed that it was a fake draft purchased by the Bank and therefore, O.P./Bank vide its letter dated 10/10/2008 brought this fact to the notice of complainant and demanded back from him the amount which they had parted with under the said fake draft. This complaint is filed with a prayer to declare that said demand is illegal, of course, coupled with compensation. There cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of Bank to claim back their dues. There is no element of service involved once the draf...