Mumbai Court April 2010 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shah Originals

Court: Mumbai

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been admitted on the following question of law:(a) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the receipts on account of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation on EEFC Account and interest on EEFC Account can be treated as part of business income and accordingly included in the profit of business while calculating deduction Under Section 80HHC?2. The Appeal arises out of proceedings for Assessment Year 2000-01. The order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25 October 2007 is a common order which governs Assessment Years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The assessee filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2000-01 declaring a total income of Rs. 28,25,080/-. An order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) on 25 March 2003 accepting the income as returned. The assessee had claimed a deducti...

Nandkishore Shamrao Daphe, Shobha W/O Nandkishore Daphe and Shamrao Ba ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR2051

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an appeal by original defendants Nos. 1 to 3 against whom a decree for declaration and injunction has been passed. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows The plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are the joint owners of field Survey No. 52/2, which is the subjectmatter of the suit. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that until 19/5/1980 the said land was never partitioned amongst the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 4 and 5. It is contended that plaintiff No. 1 has onehalf share in the said suit property while defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 have the other onehalf share in the suit property. It is contended that the relations between defendants Nos. 4 and 5 and the plaintiffs are strained. The plaintiffs submit that defendant No. 4 without the consent of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 5 sold 2 acres 15 gunthas of land ...

Prakash Pandurang Pawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 1392 of 1997, on 11th April, 2002. The appellant faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 506 of IPC and by the judgment and order under the appeal he came to be convicted for all the offences. He has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, R.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 506(II) of IPC. He was arrested on 14-9-1997 and he was denied bail before the trial Court, as well as before this Court during the pendency of this appeal and hence he has already completed the sentence of more than 13 years, by now.2. Laxmi @ Devka, the daughter ...

Dr. Prabhakar J. Lavakare Vs. the State of Maharashtra, (Summons to Be ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1802

ORDERMAHARASHTRA Universities ACT, 1994 -No. Rajabh-2009/(71/09)/VE-2. -- Whereas, the Vice-Chancellor of a University is the principal academic and executive officer of the University, and is responsible for development of the academic programmes and general administration of the University for ensuring efficiency and good order of the University;And whereas, the Vice-Chancellor is required to ensure the highest level of education and encouraging good quality research, collaborative arrangements, extension activities and appropriate technological and infrastructural resource base, etc.And whereas, the Vice-Chancellor is required to shape up the overall personality of the students in line with the National and Social priorities,And whereas, having regard to the position of the Vice-Chancellor as aforesaid, it is expedient to provide a person being appointed shall possess certain qualifications and experience ;Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-sect...

Akram Khan Sirajulhaq Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1859

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 433 of 1991, on 8th, 9th and 12th August, 2002 and by the said order, the appellant, sole accused, came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further RI for one month. During the trial, the accused was on bail and his bail bonds were cancelled andhe was directed to be taken in custody on pronouncement of the order of conviction and sentence. On admission of this appeal, the bail applications were rejected and thus he is undergoing the sentence as of now.2. We were informed across the bar that Shri A.P. Gupte, who had filed this appeal on behalf of the appellant had also conducted the trial in Sessions Case No. 433 of 1991, as a defence counsel and sometimes in the yea...

Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Vs. Shri K ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR2146

R.M. Savant, J.1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. By the above Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner i.e. Maharashtra Public Service Commission, takes exception to the Common Judgment and Order dated 14th July 2009 passed in Original Application Nos. 129, 140, 152, 153 and 177 of 2009 by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. (For short the Tribunal)3. The said Original Applications were filed by the Respondents herein i.e. the original applicants who are all working as Drugs Inspector - Class II [The parties would be referred to as per their status in the Original Applications before the Tribunal, except the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, which would be referred to as the Petitioner]. The dispute concerns the appointment to 12 posts of Assistant Commissioner (Drug), General State Services, Group 'A' in the Food Administration Department of the Government of Maharashtra.4. The facts giving ri...

Vijendra B. Singh Vs. Uma Vijendra Singh

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR2216

A.S. Oka, J.1. The submissions of learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the earlier date. Parties were put to notice that the petition will be finally decided at the stage of admission. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, it will be necessary to consider the facts of the case. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. They got married on 22nd April 1996. In the year 1998 the respondent-wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). In the said petition, a decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed on 3rd October 2002. As the said decree remained unexecuted, the petitioner-husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the said Act for a decree of divorce. The learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the said petition for divorce by judgment and decree dated 23rd August 2...

Seth Bankatlal Maloo (S.B.M.) Industries Pvt. Ltd. Through Holder of P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR2127

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Considering the nature of controversy, writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission itself with the consent of Shri Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner - industry seeks to challenge the order dated 13.01.2010 passed by Electricity Ombudsman in Representation No. 132 of 2009 holding that as the petitioner - industry is not on a express feeder, it is not entitled to continuous electric supply and is entitled to refund of excess charges recovered from it by respondents wrongly treating it as on express feeder. The contention in short, of the petitioner is that it has been sanctioned electric supply as continuous supply industry and subsequent introduction of concept of express feeder cannot change its that status.3. The facts are not in dispute. The respondents sanctioned supply to the petitio...

Radhika Property Developers Pvt. Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under th ...

Court: Mumbai

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.2. The Petitioner has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and thereby challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thane in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2009 in Regular Civil Suit No. 733/2008, whereby granted an ad-interim relief/injunction in the following words:Appeal is hereby allowed.Order dt.25.3.2009 rejecting Exh. 5 in RCS No. 733/08 by Jt. Civil Judge, S.D., Thane is hereby set aside.Exh. 5 is hereby allowed and respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 is hereby injuncted temporarily, or for that matter, pending hearing and disposal of the suit from proceeding with construction of proposed building in remaining portion of plot over CTS Nos. 57A and 85B.In the peculiar circumstances of this matter, parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.3. Cawasji Beharamji Divecha Trust, (respondent No. 5) (the Trust) is owner of 8593.28 sq.m...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vidyut Corporation

Court: Mumbai

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In the appeal which has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been formulated:1) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of CIT(A) directing the AO not to reduce the receipt of interest income by way of bill discounting at Rs. 80,31,351/- and to allow deduction Under Section 80IB on the said interest income without appreciating that said income is not 'derived from' manufacturing?2) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of CIT(A) that the AO cannot deduct the income under the head 'interest' of Rs. 4,36,372/- from the business income for the purposes of computation of deduction Under Section 80IB?2. The appeal arises out of an order passed by the Tribunal on 15 June, 2009 and it relates to assessment year 2000-01. Each of the two questions would be considered separately.Question...