Mumbai Court September 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Vs. Techno Shares and Stocks Limited and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3801; (2009)225CTR(Bom)337; [2009]184TAXMAN103(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The only question raised in all these appeals is, whether depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable on the stock exchange membership card acquired by an assessee on or after 1/4/1998 ?2. The ITAT has held that the Bombay Stock Exchange Membership Card (hereinafter referred to as the 'BSE card') acquired by an assessee on or after 1/4/1998, either by nomination or directly through the Stock Exchange is an intangible asset covered under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`Act' for short) and therefore, depreciation is allowable on the BSE Card. These appeals are filed by the revenue to challenge the aforesaid orders passed by the ITAT. 3. Since the question of law set out hereinabove is common in all these appeals, by consent, all these appeals are heard finally on the aforesaid substantial question of law and disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Mr. Gupta and Mr. Sahadevan, learned Counsel for the revenue submit that depreciation ...

S.R. Ahmad ((Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives Mrs. Ma ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4086

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the heirs of original defendant No. 1, being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the (Ad hoc) Additional District Judge, Nagpur, whereby he allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:The original plaintiff was one Syed. Gulam Jilani and the original defendant No. 1 was one S.R. Ahmed Advocate and original defendant No. 2 is Charity Commissioner. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of house No. 701, 822 and 824, formerly known as house No. 63 in Namak Ganj area of Nagpur. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the said property was orally gifted to him by his maternal uncle Mohd. Raizuddin some time in the year 1925 and accordingly his name was mutated in the Municipal record. Out of the above properties, the plaintiff had gifted municipal house No. 701 (new) and 824 (old) to his wife Alima Begum on 29/5/1970 by a writte...

Shri. Ajitsingh Bhimsingh Deore Vs. Sahebrao Bhata Wagh,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR88

S.S. Shinde, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.2. This Writ Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Gram Panchayat Appeal No. 43 of 2008 dated 6/9/2008 confirming the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon in Dispute No. 14 of 2008 dated 13/5/2008.3. The background facts of the case are as under:The petitioner herein is an elected Member of Gram Panchayat, Wadgaon Mulane, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon and working as Dy. Sarpanch. A Tax bill as contemplated under Section 129 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act came to be issued to the petitioner for house bearing No. 332 situated at Wadgaon Mulane, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. According to the petitioner, the said bill has been prepared on 25/4/2007 and same is for the year 20072008. It is the case of the petitioner that the said house stands in the name of Rajendra Bhimsingh, who is brother ...

Babasaheb S/O Sonbaji Wasade, Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Devan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3922; 2009(6)MhLj733

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Two Directors of respondent No. 3-Bank have filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Honble Minister of State for Co-operation on 30-12-2008 on appeal, maintaining the order passed by respondent No. 2 the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, on 9-6-2008 in the proceedings under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, removing the petitioners from the post of Directors of respondent No. 3-Bank. 2. After the matter was heard from time to time for admission, on 25-2-2009 it was admitted and listed for expeditious hearing. 3. Facts, which are material for deciding this petition, are as under : The petitioners were elected as Directors of respondent No. 3 Chandrapur District Central Co-operative Bank. By a resolution of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 3-Bank passed on 21-12-2002, a Committee comprising of the petitioners and some others was constituted for purchase of the Government securities. During the period from...

Lockwood Industrial and Transport Services Vs. Victoria Timber Supplyi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR105; 2010(1)MhLj187

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Appellants are original plaintiffs and respondents are original defendants. Appellants are challenging the judgment and order passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay in Special Civil Suit No. 6405 of 1975 whereby the learned Judge of the City Civil Court was pleased to dismiss the suit filed by appellants.2. Brief facts are as under:3. Appellants (hereinafter referred to for the sake of convenience as plaintiffs) filed Special Civil Suit No. 6405 of 1975 against respondents (hereinafter referred to for the sake of convenience as defendants), seeking decree against defendants for eviction from the suit premises on the ground that they are trespassers, secondly, for damages to the tune of Rs. 8,500/-and, thirdly, for mesne profit @ Rs. 500/-per month for their illegal occupation of the said structures.4. The Bombay Port Trust is the owner of the land bearing Survey Nos. 11/671 and 12/671 of Margaon Division admeasuring about 1950 sq. yards. It is an admitted position tha...

Dharma Soma Tare and ors. Vs. Harischandra Gangaram Tare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR102; 2009(6)MhLj232

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Second Appeal challenges the orders of both the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court by which the appellant's suit has been dismissed. When the appeal was admitted, the following substantial questions were raised:Whether the plaintiffs i.e. the appellants are entitled to exemption of the Limitation Act in view of the provisions of the Order 7 Rule 6 of the CPC?Whether the deed of 16.1.1967 is a mortgage deed and the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem the mortgage at any time since the mortgage deed was not registered under the Registration Act, 1908?2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:One Sitaram Tare was the owner of the suit land bearing Survey No. 13/1 and Survey No. 17, Hissa No. 12 in Wadvali Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. Sitaram mortgaged these lands with Respondent No. 1 on 16.1.1967 for an amount of Rs. 1500/-. Sitaram required the money for his son's marriage and it was agreed between the parties that the mortgag...

Shri Daud Yakubsab Shaikh Vs. the Administrative of the New Adarsha Na ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Feeling aggrieved by the judgment/award dated 11/12/2008 dismissing the complaint passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Solapur in consumer complaint No.141/2008, org. complainant has filed this appeal. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- Complainant had kept in the O.P./Society Rs.50,000/- in Fixed Deposit for period of six months on 29/09/2005. It was to carry interest @ 7% p.a. After initial period was over, FDR was renewed upto 29/09/2006 and then it was further renewed upto 30/03/2007. For getting back said amount, complainant had approached the Credit Society, but, the Credit Society refused to pay the same. Therefore, he had approached the Deputy Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Solapur City and the Deputy Registrar, Co-op. Societies directed the Chairman and Secretary of the Credit Society to refund the amount by passing order dated 12/04/2007. Despite this order, FDR was not...

Shri V.R.Borkar, Vs. Koknes’s Kohinoor Hotel, Mumbai

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member member:- This appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation by the complainant himself. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: Complainant, a Senior citizen had booked Empress hall at opposite party hotel. His relatives from U.S.A. were to come to attend the first birthday of his grandson. So, he has arranged the dinner in Kokness Kohinoor Hotel at Kohinoor Corner, Veer Sawarkar Marg Prabhadevi, Dadar. He had already booked the said hall by paying advance of Rs.5,000/- on 10/05/2003 and on 14/05/2003 he paid remaining amount of Rs.25,000/-. This function was arranged on 18/10/2003. Menu was fixed, everything was fixed and the hotel had agreed to give welcome drink or juice and two vegetable starters and also agreed to provide four chat counters for the guest. On the day of function unfortunately, the complainant and his guests were shocked to see that hall was not made ready for them at 6.00 p.m. It ...

Bhagabai W/O Ramdas MaraThe and Latabai W/O Pralhad Foke @ MaraThe Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR35

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This writ petition challenges issuance of notice dated 13.08.1996, issued by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, for revision of the order passed by the Dy. Collector, Dhule, in Case No. 298 of 1973, decided on 17.01.1977, which was a case under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act of 1974').2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition may be stated as below :.By way of exchange of lands non tribal transferee Giridhar exchanged his land with tribal transferor Dullabha Gangaram Bhil. The lands were situated at village Gunjali, Tal. Taloda, Dist. Nandurbar (earlier Dhule). The lands held by non tribal Giridhar were Survey No. 43/1 admeasuring 3 A. 29 G. plus 21 G. pk., assessed at Rs. 9.50 and Survey No. 43/2 admeasuring 8 Acres plus 2 A. 18 G. pk. assessed at Rs. 20.19 ps. Said lands were exchanged with a land of Dullabha, who was tribal. It is land Survey No. 11 admeasuring 13 A. 15 G. plus 1 A. pk. as...

Mrs. Kalpana Sandeep Patil Vs. Murud Janjira Municipal Council and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj247

S.B. Mhase, J.1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order passed by the Collector, District Raigad, who is the respondent No. 2 herein. On 19th June, 2009, whereby purporting to act under Section 57 of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) And Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' ). He has appointed one Mr. P.C. Sakpal, Tahsildar, Murud, District Raigad to hold the charge of the President of Murud Nagar Parishad in addition to the charge which he is holding as Tahsildar. The President of Murud Nagar Parishad was elected for a period of two and half years and the said period was coming to an end on 19th June, 2009. The post of the President of the said Municipal Council was reserved for Scheduled Tribe. A person, who was elected as President of the said Municipal Council till 19th June, 2...