Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

Sind Coop. Hsg. Society, a Cooperative Society Under Maharashtra Coope ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3416; (2009)226CTR(Bom)145; [2009]317ITR47(Bom); [2009]182TAXMAN346(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. In all these appeals, the appeal is admitted on the following question : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case any part of transfer fees received by the assessee societies whether from outgoing or incoming members is not liable to tax on the ground of mutuality? 2. As the question of law arises not only in these appeals but in several other companion appeals and writ petitions which were on board we have heard the learned Counsel appearing also in those appeals and petitions while deciding these appeals. For the sake of brevity some of the facts from the appeals filed by Sind Coop. Housing Society Ltd. will be considered. The tribunal by its order dated 23.6.2004 in dismissing the appeal has placed reliance on the judgment of the special Bench of the tribunal in Walkeshwar Triveni Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer . The Special Bench of the tribunal therein observed that amounts received as donations towards welfare fund, comm...

State of Goa Rep. by Executive Engineer, Works Division Xi, Irrigation ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3091

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Department has challenged Order dated 22.02.2000, delivered by District Judge, South Goa, at Margao, in Civil Misc. Application No. 101/1998. The learned IInd Addl. District Judge, who decided the matter, has considered the points whether act of Arbitrator in granting amount in excess of contractual amount or failure to deduct escalation already paid was against public policy and constituted fraud. 2. The learned Advocate General appearing for appellant- State has contended that a case for remand is being pressed into service as both these aspects are understood in the background of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at : AIR1994SC860 (Renusagar Power Co. v. General Electric Company) by the learned District Court and said Judgment has been modified and concept has been found to be more wider by Hon'ble Apex Court in its latter Judgment reported at : [2003]3SCR691 (O...

Mrs. Kanchan Sanjay Gujar Vs. Mr. Sanjay Bhikan Gujar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2009Bom151; 2009(111)BomLR3459

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act read with Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short) arises from the judgment and order dated 10/12/2003 rendered by the Family Court at Pune thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties under Section 13(1A) of the Act by allowing Petition No. A-345 of 2001 filed by the respondent - husband.2. The parties were married on 13/12/1980 as per the Hindu Customs and Rites at Pune and they begot three children, elder son Kunal was born on 17/1/1983, younger son Mayur was born on 28/9/1984 and daughter Sayali was born on 23/5/1988. As of now all the three children have attained majority but Sayali is still unemployed and, therefore, has no independent source of income The appellant filed Petition No. A574 of 1995 seeking the decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act on 29/7/1995 and on the same date she filed Petition No. C-38 of 1995 claiming maintenance for...

Smt. Janabai Govindrao Korche and Vs. Women's Education Society, A pub ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3715

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. These three writ petitions can be decided by a common judgment since facts in all the writ petitions are exactly identical.2. By these writ petitions, petitioners/defendants in these suits challenge the judgment and decrees passed by the District Judge, whereby he confirmed the judgment and decrees passed by the Civil Judge.3. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as follows The respondent/plaintiff is a Public Trust. It runs a school known as Abhyankar Kanya Shala. One Govindrao Korche, Deoji Kathane and Panjabrao Bhande - the original defendants were in service as a peon cum watchman in the said school. The respondent/plaintiff had constructed five tenements in the premises of the Abhyankar Kanya School and had provided tenements to the defendants as employees of the plaintiff's trust. In the year 1974 the plaintiff trust passed a Resolution and decided to deduct occupation charges from the employees who were allotted the accommodation. Govindrao Korc...

Agnello Caridade Lobo Vs. Mr. Sanjay A. Pednekar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR62; 2009(111)BomLR3318

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The writ petition to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission as per orders of this Court dated 30.4.2009. Accordingly, we admit the writ petition by making Rule, returnable forthwith. Respective Advocates waive notice for the respondents. The matter is heard finally by consent.2. Challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India raises a question of disqualification of respondent No. 1 as a Member of respondent No. 2 Village Panchayat. Declaration sought for by the petitioner is for that disqualification and for a relief that the seat has become vacant. The facts are not much in dispute. The present respondent No. 1 is elected as a Member of Village Panchayat Socorro on 7.5.2007 and as its Deputy Sarpanch on 19.5.2007. One Shri Pinto has got a plot having No. 6 in area of said Village. He has entered into an agreement dated 7/12/07 for construction of residential building on said plot with respondent No. 1, w...

Mr. Sadashiv G. Vaidya, Through Next Friend and Wife, Mrs. Meena S. Va ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 07/07/2008, issuing warrant passed in Execution Proceedings No.116/2005 by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Solapur (Forum below in short) There is a delay of 207 days in filing Revision Petition. Therefore, Petitioner has filed Misc.Application for condonation of delay bearing No.785/2009. No just and sufficient cause has been explained in the application for causing delay. Hence, application for condonation for delay stands rejected. Order: 1) Misc. Application No.785/2009 stands dismissed and in the result, Revision Petition is not entertained. 2) Misc.Application No.786/2009 for stay stands disposed of as infructuous. 3) No order as costs. 4) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Latabai W/O Jeevanrao Bodhankar, Since Deceased Through Legal Represen ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)111BOMLR3296

K.K. Tated, J.1. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the original defendants against the Judgment and decree dated 13th September, 1984 passed by District Judge, Nanded in Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1981 arising out of the Judgment and decree dated 16th February, 1981 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in Regular Civil Suit No. 27 of 1976.2. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length.3. To avoid the confusion in the nomenclature, The parties will be referred as they appear in the Suit proceedings. Few facts of the present case are as under:The plaintiff filed Regular civil Suit No. 27 of 1976 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded on 2nd February, 1976 for a declaration of ownership of the land of an area of 15 Gunthas of northern portion out of land Survey No. 70 measuring 2 Acres 15 Gunthas, assessed to land revenue Rs. 4.70 Paise situated at Nanded, along with perpetual injunction order restraining the defendants from comm...

Mr. Chimanlal Shah Vs. Mrs. Farhana Abdul Jabar Sayyad

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj598

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Respondent waives service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.2. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners pray that this Court should quash and set aside the orders dated 22nd September 2005, 7th April 2008 and 24th September 2008.3. The Petitioner is the Original Respondent in Eviction Application No. 12 of 2004 which was on the file of the Competent Authority, Konkan Division. That Application has been filed by the Respondent seeking eviction of the Petitioner from the premises on the grounds, which are more particularly enumerated in the Application.4. The Respondent filed this Application invoking Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.5. In terms of the relevant statutory provisions, the Petitioner - Respondent applied for necessary leave to defend. The Competent Authority granted leave to defend on 28th July 2004. Thereupon, the written statement was filed after which the proceedings...

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. R.K. Dhall and ors. (No. 1)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2010]153CompCas146(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties. Counsel appearing for the respective contesting respondents waive notice. As short question is involved, appeal is admitted and finally disposed of forthwith.2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Company Law Board dated May 22, 2009, on Application No. 95 of 2009. The said application was filed in Company Petition No. 45 of 2009 which in turn is filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, by 106 individual shareholders of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd., the appellant herein. By the impugned decision the Board has in the first place restrained the appellant-company and its board of directors in implementing the decision taken in the board of directors' meeting held on May 18, 2009, in relation to the issue of convertible warrants of 25 million equity shares of Rs. 10 each till disposal of the main petition. Besides, the Board has directed the appellants to give necessary informati...

Water Queen Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai Through their Au ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Complainant and his counsel absent. Complainant failed to take effective steps to serve notice on the O.P. Hence the order:- Order: Complaint stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....