Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR126; 1999(2)BomCR771; (1998)3BOMLR228
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. This Court was established because large amounts were siphoned out from Banks and Financial Institutions into private pockets. The manner by which monies have been siphoned out are many. This case indicates how the broker and the officer, who is a public servant and whose duty it should have been to protect public monies, have conspired to misuse public position to enable the broker to siphon out monies on a large scale.2. Accused No. 1 was at the relevant time the Executive Vice President of Canbank Financial Services Limited (hereinafter called 'CANFINA'). Accused No. 1 was the Chief Dealer of CANFINA. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were at the relevant time Assist. Vice Presidents of CANFINA. Accused No. 3 was, at the relevant time, also a dealer of CANFINA. Accused No. 4 was and is a Share and Securities Broker.3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:Sometime in September, 1991 one Canbank Mutual Fund had taken out an Issue of Units called CANCIGO Units. It is th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(4)BomCR608
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. These three writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the Mandamus against the respondents who are the State of Maharashtra, the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, Mumbai, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, and other officials working under them and Coroner of Mumbai, (i) directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to furnish the particulars regarding the number of persons killed in last one year in police encounters, their names, addresses, the circumstances in which these persons are killed, the enquiries, if any, conducted with respect to the said killings and any other relevant information and the action taken, if any, by them: (ii) directing the respondent No. 1 to register offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant enactments against the Police Officers, if found prima facie responsible for the violation of the fundamental rights and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and other rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR293
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two petitions are in the nature of public interest litigation, the first at the instance of a journalist from Pune and the second at the instance of a Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution broadly challenge the action of the first respondent, the State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'P.M.C') in grantingbuilding permission to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for construction of a building on Final Plot No. 110, Erandwana, Pune. The petitions also allege that the action of the Commissioner of P.M.C. was at the behest of respondent No. 5 who was the Chief Minister of the Government of Maharashtra at the material time and contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.P. Act'). It is contended that the said buildings permission is not only illegal, but also vitiated as it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)BomCR189
ORDERM.S. Rane, J.NATURE AND BACKGROUND OF THIS PROSECUTION:1. The prosecution herein is sequel to security scam which broke out in the mid of the year 1992 in various types of security transactions alleged to be undertaken in active connivance with the bank officials and brokers. The principal subject matter of this prosecution is alleged fraudulent transactions in Government securities, Units of UTI etc. resorted to by the banks, financial institutions and share and stock brokers with the aim and object of illegally siphoning of the bank funds to concerned and selective brokers for their personal speculative returns and benefits. The amount alleged to be involved as at the end of May, 1992 is estimated to Rs. 434,01,20,354.78. The banks and financial institutions involved are Canbank Financial Services Ltd. (CANFINA), a subsidiary of Canara Bank, Bank of Karad Ltd., Bombay (BOK), and Metropolitan Co-operative Bank Ltd. (MCB).2. The offences with which the accused in this case are cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2002]109CompCas18(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The notices of motion in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 seek to challenge the legality and validity of substantial acquisitions of shares by defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in defendant No. 12-company allegedly in violation of the provisions of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994, and pray for the annulment thereof, particularly in the context of the breaches of regulations 9 and 10 which require a public announcement of the intention to acquire substantial shares in certain circumstances. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 on the other hand, dispute the right of third parties like the plaintiffs to challenge such acquisitions, the rights of plaintiffs claimed to be based in common law and/or statute and as to whether the voting rights flowing from such shares can be injuncted by filing a suit in the context of the relevant provisions of the Companies Act. Consequently, the questions pertaining to balance of convenience and appropriate orders to be passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)ALLMR504; 1999(4)BomCR566
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The writ petitioners in this case challenge the setting up of a Cryogenic Liquefied Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) storage and handling facility in close vicinity of their establishments, on several grounds including ground of mala fides on the part of the statutory authorities in granting the requisite licence and clearances and also on the ground that the said facility is hazardous environmentally and violative of the Coastal Region Zone Regulations (C.R.Z.).2. The petitioners are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, belonging to the Tata Group of Companies and doing the business of generation, transmission and bulk distribution of electricity in their area of supply in Greater Mumbai under licence granted by the State Government under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.3. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra; respondent No. 2 is the Bombay Municipal Corporation; respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are different statutory authorities exerc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)66TTJ(Mumbai)817
ORDERM. A. Bakshi J.M.The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 30-12-1997, of Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle 23, Mumbai, under section 158BC of Income Tax Act, 1961. The block period is from 1-4-1986, to 18-12-1996.2. The relevant facts, in this case, are that the assessee is a film actress of Hindi films. She had started her career as a film artist in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1991-92. Prior to joining films the assessee had certain modeling assignments for consumer products. She had also produced a film viz., 'Tamanna' under the banner of M/s Pooja Bhatt Productions, her proprietary concern. On 18-12-1996, there was a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the residential premises of the assessee. Cash of Rs. 98,500 and some documents were seized. A notice under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued to the assessee on 11-4-1997, in response to which the assessee had filed the retur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)101BOMLR641a
N.J. Pandya, J.1. All the three matters arise out of the judgment in Sessions Case No. 462 of 1994 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The judgment of conviction came to be delivered on 19th February, 1998. As there was a possibility of death sentence being awarded, at the request of the State and with the consent of all the sides, the matter was postponed and finally the order of sentence came to be passed on 23rd February, 1998. While awarding the sentence, not only the Accused were heard but on their behalf, their respective counsel were also heard and so was the Special P.P. appointed for the case on behalf of the State.2. The charges in the alternative were framed. Primary charge was of s. 120-B, 302 read with 120-B and in the alternative under Section 302 read with Section 34; there was the charge under Sections 302 and 342 read with Section 120-B and in the alternative the charge under Section 342 read with Section 34; the charge under Section 397 read with 120-B an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2001]76ITD121(Mum)
ORDERM.V.R. Prasad, A.M.These are cross appeals by the assessee and the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 30-3-1995 for the assessment year 1991-92. These were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Various grounds are taken by the assessee in ITA No. 5531 /Bom/95. Excluding the ancillary grounds, the main grounds are as follows :'0.1(a)The Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 62,500 made by the Assistant Commissioner by estimating the professional receipts of the appellant at Rs. 5,00,000 as against the admitted receipts of Rs. 4,37,500.02.(a)The first appellate authority was not correct in confirming the estimated disallowance of Rs. 20,000 made by the Assistant Commissioner out of expenses incurred by the appellant on salary and bonus of his employees.03.(a)The Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 1,19,952 out of interest claimed by the appellant on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. These are cross appeals by the assessee and the Department against the order of the CIT(A) dated 30-3-1995 for the assessment year 1991-92. These were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Various grounds are taken by the assessee in ITA No. 5531/Bom./95.Excluding the ancillary grounds, the main grounds are as follows :- "01. (a) The CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 62,500 made by the AC by estimating the professional receipts of the Appellant at Rs. 5,00,000 as against the admitted receipts of Rs. 4,37,500. 02. (a) The First Appellate Authority was not correct in confirming the estimated disallowance of Rs. 20,000 made by the AC out of expenses incurred by the Appellant on salary and bonus of his employees. 03. (a) The CIT (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 1,19,952 out of interest claimed by the Appellant on the ground that the relevant borrowals were made from concerns whose name appear in Annexure A3 seiz...
Tag this Judgment!