Mumbai Court May 2013 Judgments
Sinoriches Enterprises Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Xing Xiang an and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-2013
1. By the above Notice of Motion, the Applicant (Original Defendant No.2) has sought dismissal of Admiralty Suit No.76 of 2011 on the ground that the Plaintiff has suppressed the relevant facts from this Court as well as the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and has obtained an ex-parte order of arrest on 27th September 2011. By the above Notice of Motion, the Applicant has also sought an order and direction to the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court to return the security of Rs.4,91,54,500/- to the Applicant Original Defendant No.2 with accrued interest till the date of payment and realization. 2. The facts in the matter are briefly set out hereunder: 3. The Defendant No.1 vessel m. v. XING XIANG AN was chartered by Defendant No.2 Shanghai Yang Pu Zhe Hai Shipping Co. Ltd./its Associate Company M/s. Yang Pu Zhe Hai Shipping Co. Ltd. (referred to as HK Co), to Defendant No.3 Hong Kong Chain Glory Shipping Limited for 23-25 months +/15 days. Accordingly, the charter was to come to an end...
Tag this Judgment!S. Narendra Kumar and Co. Vs. Apricot Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-29-2013
1. The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiff to restrain the Defendant from infringing the Plaintiffs registered mark EVEREST and the registered marks set out at Exhibits C-1 to C-40 of the Plaint. The Plaintiff has also sought to restrain the Defendant from using the mark EVEREST or any other identical or deceptively similar mark so as to pass off the Defendants products as that of the Plaintiff's. 2. According to the Plaintiff, when the Suit was filed on 28th January 2010, the goods of the Defendant were being sold outside Mumbai. However, after the filing of the Suit in or around August 2012, the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendants goods were also being sold/marketed in Mumbai. The Plaintiffs employee went to various stores in Mumbai and found the Defendants products in these stores. It is to bring on record this subsequent fact that an amendment is being sought to the Plaint. 3. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant has opposed the Chamber Summons on the following ...
Tag this Judgment!Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-29-2013
1. The Plaintiff has filed the present Suit against the Defendants inter alia, for infringement of their registered trademark ANTI-THYROX and also, passing off in respect of their registered mark ANTI-THYROX and their unregistered trademark THYROX. By the present Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff has sought an order of injunction against the Defendants from manufacturing and marketing any medicinal preparation/product by using the mark LETHYROX. 2. Briefly set out, the facts in the matter are as under: 3. The Plaintiff is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of pharmaceutical preparations. According to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is a well known manufacturer of and dealer in pharmaceuticals and medicinal preparations and enjoys a very good reputation for its products because of its excellent quality and efficacy. The products manufactured by the Plaintiff enjoy and command a good reputation among the doctors, chemists and the public in general, and its products a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Premleela Developers Tardeo Vs. Borivali (W)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2013
N.K. Billaiya, Am: These cross appeals by the revenue and the assessee are directed against the very same order of the CIT(A)-28 Mumbai dated 17.03.11 pertaining to AY 2007-08 as both the appeals were heard together, the are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 4632/Mum/2011 2. The only grievance of the revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,00,210/- made by the AO on account of expenses claimed by the assessee for payment of compensation, not appreciating the fact that the said expenses were prior period expenses. 3. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed expenses on compensation at Rs. 67,81,955 in its Profit and Loss Account. 4. A perusal of the details filed by the assessee showed that the assessee has paid Rs. 50,31,955/- to M/s Punraj Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 17,50,000/- to M/s Chandiwala Enterprises . On further scrutiny, the AO noticed ...
Tag this Judgment!itd Cementation India Ltd Vs. Assessee
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2013
B.R. Mittal, JM: 1. The assesee has filed this appeal for assessment year 2003-04 against order dated 10.5.2011 of ld CIT(A). 2 Ground No.1 of appeal is as under: "Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in passing the order u/s.250 of the Act in gross violation of principles of natural justice." 3. At the time of hearing, ld A.R. submitted that above ground is not pressed for. Hence, Ground No.1 of appeal is dismissed as not pressed for. 4. Ground Nos.2 and 3 read as under: "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the AO's action in reopening the completed assessment u/s.147 of the I.T.Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the legality of reassessment under section 147 of Income tax Act, 1961 although the AO has not disposed off the assessee's objections to the reopening under section 147 by a speaking order." 5. The relevant facts are that assessee is carrying on contract b...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. Pravinchandra Hirji Shah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-2013
1. The above Appeal is filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act). By the above Appeal, the Appellants (Original Respondents) have impugned the order dated 6th October 2010, passed by the Learned Member, Ms. Vimla Yadav, of the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CLB), in Company Petition No. 60 of 2006. By the impugned order the Learned Member has: (i) directed the Appellant No. 1 Company to alter/modify its Memorandum and Articles of Association to provide for proportional representation to the Respondents (original Petitioners) on the Board and till this is done directed that the Respondent No.1 himself or through his nominee continue to attend the Board Meetings along with two more Directors from that Group; (ii) directing that the quorum in the Board Meeting of Appellant No. 1 shall not be complete without the presence of at least one of the Directors from the Respondents Group; and (iii) further directing that the Respondents Group shall also nominate...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Agilsys It Services India P. Ltd. and Another Vs. Vaidya Chowk, B ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-2013
D. Manmohan, V.P. 1. These cross appeals are directed against the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the CIT(A), Visakhapatanam and they pertain to A.Y. 2001-02. 2. In the appeal filed by the assessee a preliminary issue concerning the validity of reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax, 1961 was raised. 3. Facts necessary for disposal of the appeals are stated in brief. In the year under consideration the assessee company was engaged in the business of development of computer software. The Visakhapatnam Unit is situated in the Special Economic Zone, i.e. Software Technology Park of Visakhapatnam. The company provides consultancy in software development. The assessee company filed its return of income admitting a loss of `3,20,10,425/- on 30.10.2001 wherein the net profit from the STPI Unit was shown, on which deduction under section 10A was claimed. It also claimed adjustment of the loss from non-STPI Units situated at Visakhapatnam and Mumbai. According to the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Dbs Bank Ltd, Mumbai Vs. Assessee
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-2013
R.S. Syal (AM): 1. This appeal by the Revenue and Cross objection by the assessee arise out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 31.08.2006 in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003. 2. First ground of the Revenue's appeal is against allowing deduction of Staff costs of Rs.16,66,659 and Specific expenses of Rs.21,977 incurred by the head office on behalf of the assessee in entirety holding that such expenses were not covered by the expenses mentioned u/s 44C. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an Indian branch of the Development Bank of Singapore. It claimed deduction of Rs.16.66 lakh towards Salary cost of expatriate staff deployed at the branch on a full time basis incurred by the head office on behalf of branch and Rs.21,977 towards Specific expenses incurred by head office on behalf of Indian operations / branch. In the computation of income, the Assessing Officer allowed deduction for these two sums. Inadvertently, the a...
Tag this Judgment!Ruchiraj Shares and Stock Brokers Vs. Assessee
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2013
D. Karunakara Rao, Am: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee on 22.3.2012 is against the order of the CIT (A)-8, Mumbai dated 10.1.2012 for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. In this appeal, assessee raised the only effective ground which read as under: "1. The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 272(1)(c) of Rs. 17,39,973/- by the ITO-4(2)(1), Mumbai on the ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The said CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that the claim for R and D expenditure was bona fide one and with supporting evidences. The Ld CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that merely rejection of a claim for expenditure does not result into any concealment of income as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC)." 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of investment and trading of shares and filed the return declaring the t...
Tag this Judgment!Janhit Manch and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Prin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-2013
N.M. Jamdar, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This Petition, purportedly filed for public interest, seeks to question the legality of a 56 storied residential building known as Palais Royale' and a public parking lot adjacent to it, constructed by Respondent no.5, situated at Worli, Mumbai. According to the Petitioners, the structures are erected in violation of planning norms, and use of discretionary power by the Municipal Commissioner to grant concessions to the respondent no.5, is excessive and bad in law. 3. The challenge is to the approvals and commencement certificates in respect of the residential building and Public Parking Lot (hereinafter referred to as PPL). A writ of mandamus is also sought for demolition of additional floors of the Residential Building. 4. The Petitioners have filed the petition in the public interest claiming that the Petitioner No.1 is a non-governmental organization working for the cause of good governance in the city of M...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »