Court : Mumbai Goa
u.v. bakre, j. this common judgment and order shall dispose of the above three appeals filed against the orders, of the income tax appellate tribunal, panaji branch (i.t.a.t.), dated 6/9/2006 in i.t.a. no. 214 to 217/panj/2005; 2/1/2006 in i.t.a. no. 29/panj/1998; and 9/7/2007 in i.t.a. no. 92/pnj/2007, thereby holding that the principle of mutuality applies and that the income earned from members is liable to be exempted from tax. 2. the respondent is the assessee, which is a co-operative society registered under the co-operative societies act, engaged in trading in consumer goods to its members as well as non-members. 3. facts relevant for the disposal of the tax appeal no. 13 of 2007 may be stated as under: the assessment years relevant for the purpose of this appeal are 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. for the assessment year 1997-1998, the assessee had filed return of income on 15/10/1997 which was processed under section 143(1) of the income tax act, 1961( i.t. act, for short) and proposal under section 151(2) of i.t. act 1961 was sent by the assessing officer to the office of j.c.i.t., range- 2, panaji for approval to issue notice under section 148 of the i.t. act. accordingly, notice under the said provision was issued on 15/07/2003, in response to which the assessee filed the return of income on 21/10/2003 in which the assessee claimed the deduction of rs. 2,25,963/-, under section 80p(2a)(d) of the i.t. act, on account of sale of consumable goods to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: the above two appeals are taken up jointly for disposal as they pertain to the land adjacent to one another acquired under the same notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1894 (l.a. act). 2. land was acquired for construction of a road from querim to dyghode in ponda taluka. the notification under section 4(1) of the l.a. act was published in the official gazette dated 7/2/1989. this, inter alia, included land from survey nos. 101/1 and 105/1 of village priol of ponda taluka. an area admeasuring 380 square metres was acquired from survey no. 101/1 (part) and an area of 1250 square metres was acquired from survey no. 105/1. the appellant of f. a. no. 323/2003 had laid claim for undivided 50% share in the said acquired land. the remaining 50% share belonged to shri sadanand g. s. priolkar. the said acquisition, inter alia, also included land from survey nos. 101/3 and 102/1. an area of 310 square metres was acquired from survey no. 101/3 (part) whereas an area of 1775 square metres was acquired from survey no.102/1. the appellant of f. a. no. 324/2003 had laid his claim to the said acquired land. the learned land acquisition officer (l.a.o.), by award dated 25/10/1991 awarded the universal rate of rs. 6/- per square metre to the entire land acquired vide the said notification under section 4(1) of the l.a. act, published on 7/2/1989. 3. not being satisfied with the offer made by the l.a.o., both the appellants filed applications under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral order: heard shri v. menezes, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. the above appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent no.1 inter alia to declare the right of ownership over the suit property came to be decreed. 3. the respondent no.1 filed the suit on the ground that they are the owners in possession of the suit property surveyed under no.63/1 and 65/2 of village of majorda which according to the said respondent is a part and parcel of the property described in land registration office under no.1944. the property was thereafter described by inscription no.11809 in favour of joao miguel gomes and others. it is further their case that by deed of gift dated 12/03/1916, the suit property was gifted and partitioned. it is further their case that by deed of sale dated 30/09/1977, they purchased half share of maria fatima filomena and oliveira vas of the suit property and as such they became owners in possession of an area of 20, 750 square metres of the property surveyed under no.63/1 and an area of 13,250 of the property surveyed under no.65/2 totally admeasuring an area of 34,000 square metres of the suit property. it is further their case that the name of the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 has been recorded in the occupants column in respect of the property surveyed under no.63/1 and that the name of the appellants has been fraudulently shown as occupants in survey no.65/2. consequently, as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: heard shri shivan dessai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and shri d. vernekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. rule. heard forthwith by the consent of learned counsels. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. the above petition challenges the order passed by the learned civil judge junior division, margao, dated 03.05.2011 whereby an application filed by the petitioners for leave to produce the documents came to be partly allowed and the documents mentioned at sr. nos. 1(b) to (g) at para 1 of the application came to be rejected. as a result of the impugned order, the petitioners were denied leave to produce the survey plan of the survey holding no.43/1-a and 1-b of village nuvem, form i and xiv of survey holding no. 43/1-a of village nuvem, judgment and order in lrc no. 531/2005/iii, death and burial certificate of esmeralda pereira, agreement dated 16.11.1991, and notice issued by the additional collector along with appeal memo. the relief sought in the petition is as follows: for a writ, direction or order under article 227 of the constitution of india, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 03.05.2011, passed by civil judge, junior division, at margao, in regular civil suit no. 157/2005/e to the extent that production of documents at serial no. (b) to (g) is rejected and allow the application dated 28.03.2011 in terms thereto. 5. shri shivan dessai, learned counsel appearing for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
u.v. bakre, j. the above second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs of regular civil suit no. 397/88/jr. 2. the plaintiffs had filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and/or any other persons acting on their behalf, from interfering in any manner with the suit access. 3. case of the plaintiffs, in short, was as follows:- they are occupying a house as mundkars situated in the suit property bearing survey no. 229/25 of calangute village, for more than 50 years. the suit property is land locked and on the southern side of the same there is a property managed and looked after by the defendants, beyond which there exists a public road. the plaintiffs were always using an access having width of about 3 metres leading from the public road to the suit property, through this property of the defendants since the time they and their family members started occupying the house in the suit property. the said property of the defendants bears survey no. 229/33 and the suit access is being used as motorable access since time immemorial, openly, peacefully and without any interference from anybody and that it is the only access available to them to go to the public road. the suit access is also a traditional access and as a right of necessity and customary easement for them. in the month of august, 1998, defendants brought two trucks load of mud in their property and two days thereafter they planted coconut saplings in order to obstruct the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: rule. with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. the writ jurisdiction of this court under article 227 of the constitution of india is invoked against the order dated 24/10/2011 passed by the executing court i.e. the learned civil judge senior division, panaji by which order the application filed by the respondent no.1 herein for directing the petitioner herein i.e. the judgment debtor no.2 to deposit an amount of rs.3 lacs (rupees three lacs only) in the executing court came to be allowed. the second order under challenge is the order dated 9/04/2012 by which order the review application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. the facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petition in brief can be stated thus: the petitioner herein was the defendant no.2 in the suit filed by the respondent no.1 being special civil suit no.100/2007. the substantive reliefs sought in the said suit are as follows: (a) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner of the amounts standing presently in fixed deposit account no.030131836328 for rs.6,00,000/-, 030156837334 for rs.50,000/- in state bank of india, panaji branch and fsc 1688 for rs.5,00,000/- and fdr 12327 for rs.7,00,000/- in the dena bank, panaji branch and saving bank account with sbi, panaji branch bearing no.3012556835-5 and savings bank account no.sb/gen/19610 with dena bank, panaji branch. (b) for a direction to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: heard mr. r. g. ramani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and mr. sudesh usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. the above petition challenges the judgment dated 16.05.2011 passed by the learned administrative tribunal in tenancy revision application no.66/2004 and misc. appln. no.257/2004 whereby the revision preferred by the respondent was allowed and the judgment passed by the learned mamlatdar dismissing the application filed by the respondent to declare him as tenant of the disputed property came to be set aside. the dispute hanging fire between the petitioners and the respondent for last four decades. it is the claim of the petitioners that the respondent is a caretaker of the disputed property which is surveyed under nos.428/3, 428/4, 408/1 and 420/1 of village shiroda in ponda taluka. the claim of the respondent is that he is the tenant of the disputed property. it is not in dispute that the disputed property is an areca nut garden. the respondent has filed a suit against the petitioners inter-alia seeking for an injunction to restrain the petitioners from interfering with the disputed property. the suit came to be decreed by the learned civil judge junior division, ponda and the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the learned district judge was allowed. in the meanwhile, the respondent has filed a revision application before this court which came to be disposed of by judgment dated 24.01.1997. while disposing of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment by this petition, the petitioner questions the order passed by the learned additional sessions judge dated 20/07/2011 in criminal revision application no.7/2011 upholding the order dated 19/01/2011 passed by the learned chief judicial magistrate, margao whereby the learned chief judicial magistrate rejected the petitioner's application for cancellation of proclamation dated 05/10/2010. this proclamation was issued under section 82 of criminal procedure code because the accused / petitioner was stated to be absconding. 2. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proclamation was actually served upon the petitioner or came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 16/11/2010 i.e. a day after the petitioner was required to appear before the court on 15/11/2010. 3. respondent no.1/ complainant has filed an affidavit trying to suggest that the proclamation was in fact served upon the petitioner well before 12/11/2010. a copy of the proclamation which is made available for my perusal, has an endorsement of shri a. b. kenkare, a.s.i. mapusa which unfortunately does not bear any date on which the proclamation was published at public places. this is a question, which would require evidence to be taken by the learned magistrate. the application should not have been disposed of on the basis of presumption without actually scrutinizing evidence to show as to when the proclamation was published and whether 30 days' time was available to the petitioner to appear .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: heard shri a.d. bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. none for the respondents though served. 2. rule heard forthwith. the notice issued to the respondents was for disposal of the above petition at the stage of admission. 3. the above petition challenges an order passed by the learned civil judge junior division at margao dated 22/08/2012 whereby an application for amendment filed by the petitioners came to be rejected. 4. briefly, the facts as submitted by shri a.d. bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are that the petitioners filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the structure located in the property of the petitioners. 5. the respondent no.1 in his written statement disputed the claim of the petitioners and inter alia claimed that he is the mundkar of the disputed premises. it is further contended that before the affidavit evidence was filed in the court the petitioners filed an application for amendment to inter alia disclose the flow of their right to the disputed premises in the suit property. it is further the contention of shri a.d. bhobe, learned counsel that amendment is only clarificatory and in no way changes the nature of the suit. the learned counsel has also taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned judge has erroneously dismissed the application on the ground that trial had already started when according to him the trial had not yet begun and, as such, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: heard shri a. r. kantak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, shri p. p. singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and shri shane dias sapeco, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. rule. heard forthwith by the consent of the learned counsel. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. the above petition challenges an order passed by the leaned civil judge senior division, mapusa, dated 30.11.2012 whereby an application for amendment filed by the petitioner to amend the plaint came to be rejected. 5. briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents inter-alia seeking a direction to execute a deed of rectification to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and other reliefs. the suit came to be decreed by an ex-parte decree dated 12.01.1996. thereafter, the respondents filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree and ultimately, the decree came to be set aside by the learned district judge by judgment dated 06.01.2012. subsequently, the respondents were permitted to file their written statement to the suit. after such written statement was filed, the petitioner found it necessary to amend the plaint to rectify the sale deed as according to him there are some defects in the plaint which are more clarificatory in nature. the learned judge by the impugned order dated 30.11.2012 rejected the said application. being .....
Tag this Judgment!