Mumbai Court March 2010 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Charles M. Correa

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2010]323ITR174(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises out of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 27th February 2009. The issue relates to assessment year 2003-2004. The question of law which has been formulated by the Revenue, is as follows:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal, 'C' bench, Mumbai has erred in not considering that the assessee is not eligible for deduction Under Section 80O since he is a professional and is providing professional service and therefore it cannot be said that he was owning some Intellectual Property and earning income through use / exploitation of such Intellectual Property in view of Supreme Court's decision in the case of NTPS 2. The assessee is an architect. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2003-2004, he received professional fees of Rs. 3.15 crores including an amount of Rs. 2.43 crores, which was received in convertible fo...

Harsha NitIn Vora Vs. Dr. Nigam's Goodhelth Pvt. Ltd.,

Court: Mumbai

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioner-complainant has challenged the impugned order dated 6th October, 2009 whereby the Industrial Court, Mumbai, after hearing both the parties has set aside the order dated 3.1.2009; whereby the respondent's application for setting aside the exparte order and for restoration of the complaint was allowed and the complaint is restored and the Industrial Court has also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the said proceeding before Labour Court,2. The submission that under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP ACT, 1971, the Revisional Court ought not to have interfered with the findings of facts recorded by Labour Court after assessing the material as well as evidence placed on record as there was no perversity in the order so passed. In the interest of justice the Industrial Court, though has limited jurisdiction and power still empowered to consider the merits of the matter based upon the same material available on record, basically when the impugned o...

Kishor S/O Shrirampant Kale Vs. Sou. Shalini W/O Kishor Kale,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1398

ORDER(i) Rule is, therefore, made absolute and it is held that Misc. Criminal Complaint Case No. 314/2007 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 5, Amravati under Section 12 r/w Sections 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not maintainable and is thus quashed and consequently, all the orders passed in the said complaint by the Courts below are quashed.No order as to costs....

The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer Vs. Maroti S/O ...

Court: Mumbai

P.D. Kode, J.1. The aforesaid Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2008 and appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 16.6.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2005 convicting and sentencing accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as under:AccusedNo.Convictedfor offenceSentence1) Marotii) u/s 302 IPC for murder of Sunil,Parashram and ChandrashekharDeath and fine of Rs. 1,000/-i/d S.I. for one month.-- do --ii) u/s 324, IPC for causing hurtto Lochana PW8 and Vishwasrao Jawalkar PW10R.I. for 3 years and fine ofRs.500/- i/d S.I. for 15 days.-- do --Iii) u/s 452, IPCR.I. for 7 years and fine ofRs.1,000/- i/d S.I. for one month.2) Vinodi) u/s 302, IPC for murder of Sunil,Par ashram and Sunil Dhoot.Imprisonment for life and fineof Rs. 1,000/- i/d S.I. for one month.-- do --ii) u/s 324, IPC for causing hurtto Neminath PW5.R.I. for 3 years and fineRs.500/- i/d S.I. for 15 days.-- do --Iii) u/s 452, IPCR.I. for 7 years and fineRs.1,000/- i/d S.I. for one month.3) Go...

Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar and ors. Vs. Shri Jayawant @ Babasaheb S/ ...

Court: Mumbai

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on an application under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act filed by the respondents.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows There is a Trust known as 'Saibaba Seva Mandal, Nagpur'. There are disputes between the trustees since long. Applications for change are also pending. One Jayant Uttarwar, who is the exsecretary of the Trust, moved the application under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Said Jayant Uttarwar contends that he has been working along with the other trustees for last so many years and has developed the temple of the Trust to today's status. He contends that he has devoted his entire life in the service of the Trust and has collected funds which were required for the construction of the temple. He submits that he is, therefore, the person having interest in the Trust. The Deputy Charity Commissioner ...

Hilal Dhudku Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Shrihari P. Davare, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. By the present Criminal Revision Application, the petitioner has questioned and challenged the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 30.11.2009, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2005 and the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindkheda in R.C.C. No. 150 of 1998 on 10.1.2005, for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code.3. It appears that the petitioner Hilal was in service as a Secretary of Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Society Limited, Sawai Mukti (Society) and he was entrusted with the duty to maintain accounts and its related transactions. He also had domain over the property of the society. The first informant Pandharinath i.e. PW1 was the second auditor, who carried out the audit of the said soc...

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

The appellant has obtained the requisite clearance from the Committee on Disputes to pursue this appeal. 2. The appellant is engaged in the activity of rendering telephone services to their subscribers. As per the half-yearly return filed by them for the period October 2003 to March 2004, the service tax payable in respect of telephone service for the month of February 2004 was Rs.30,79,422/- for taxable value of Rs.3,84,92,775/-. However, they paid a higher amount (Rs.38 lakhs) for the month of February 2004, in two instalments, Rs.28 lakhs on 11.3.2004 and Rs.10 lakhs on 26.3.2004. On 18.9.2005, they filed a refund claim for the excess amount of Rs.7,20,578/- paid by them. The original authority rejected this claim as time-barred and its order was sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal of the assessee. 3. On examination of the records, I find that there was some correspondence between the appellant and the department in relation to the excess amount of ser...

Jaibharat Synthetics Limited, a Public Limited Company Registered Unde ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR2199

A.P. Bhangale, J.1. Heard. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 waives notice. By consent, taken up for hearing forthwith.2. The petitioners seek to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 read with Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality and propriety of the notice dated 5-1-2010, issued by the Tahsildar, Palghar, District Thane, informing the petitioners to handover possession of the immoveable and moveable properties to respondent No. 2-the Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (ARCIL), within 15 days from the date of the notice. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 24-8-2009, passed by the learned District Magistrate, Thane and for issuance of a direction prohibiting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from taking actual possession of the factory situated at Plot No. D-24, MIDC, Tarapur, Taluka Palghar, District Thane, without following the procedure laid down in Section 13(2) o...

Sou. Sitabai Narayanrao Deshmukh (Since Deceased, Through L.Rs. Mrs. S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1595

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by original plaintiff Sitabai (since deceased, represented by her legal heirs-appellant Nos. A-1 to A-5) whose suit bearing R.C.S. No. 645 of 1978 for declaration and permanent injunction to restrain Defendant No. 1-State of Maharashtra from taking possession of the suit land was dismissed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar on 18.12.1982 which judgment and decree was further confirmed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1983 decided on 23.1.1987.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the original plaintiff Sitabai-appellant herein was the wife of original Defendant No. 3 Narayanrao Deshmukh who is Respondent No. 3 in the second appeal. Northern half portion of the suit land Gat No. 197/1 admeasuring 6 hector 88 Ares situated at village Mahegaon Deshmukh is the trust property owned by Respondent No. 2 Trust, namely, Goverdhanhari Devasth...

Shelke Bevarages Private Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Compani ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)112BOMLR1479,LC2010(1)313

A.R. Bhangale, J.1. This appeal arises from the order dated 19.11.2009 whereby the Notice of Motion No. 3709 of 2009 in Suit No. 2516 of 2009 has been made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) to (c). The facts of the case, in brief, are thus:2. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) claimed that plaintiff No. l Mr. Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal, in or about the year 2001 invented a method of producing Oxygen Enriched Packaged Drinking Water and an Apparatus used therefore. The said invention was fully secured by Indian Patent under the Indian Patents Act 1970. Patent No. 204086 was granted under the Patent Certificate dated 26.12.2006 to Shri. Rasiklal Manikchand Dariwal, pursuant to his application bearing No. 254/MUM/2002 dated 15.03.2002. According to plaintiff No. l, in the year 2002 he started processing, marketing and dealing in innovative 'Oxygen Enriched Healthy Packaged Drinking Water' of a Unique Purity and Utility. The plaintiff No. l adopted distinctive mark 'OXYRICH' which...