Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-27-2006
Reported in : 2006(3)ALLMR338; 2006(3)BomCR557
..... not arise, it would be permissible to fix the rateable value which is reasonable without regard to the provisions of the rent control act. 50. the supreme court in the case of diwan daulat rai kapoor and ors. v. new delhi municipal committee : [1980]122itr700(sc) was concerned with the question whether in case of a building in respect of which no standard rent has been fixed by the controller under the delhi rent control act, 1958, the annual value must be limited to the measure of the standard rent determinable under that act or it can be determined on the basis of the higher rent actually received by the landlord from the tenant. after considering its previous decisions in padma debi ..... building and not the occupants of the units in the building independently. the repeal of the then existing bombay rent control act and the applicability of the maharashtra rent control act, 1999 to the said building does not change the situation so as to enable the corporation to assess the self-occupied units separately from the units which are in occupation of the third parties on tenancy/leave and licence basis.(iii) that the corporation has no authority to impose revised rateable value retrospectively for a period prior to the commencement of the current official year. the corporation acted contrary to the statutory mandate of section 167 and several binding judgments of this court as well as the apex .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-20-2006
Reported in : 2007(2)ALLMR110; 2007(1)BomCR329
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The creative judicial interpretation of Article 21 by our constitutional Courts, has broadened our vision, in understanding the expression 'right to life'. Preventing degradation of our ecology and protection of our environment, including the right to clean drinking water and pollutant free atmosphere are some of its facets. Ecological factors as judicially understood, indisputably are relevant considerations in Town and Country Planning Statutes. Courts to preserve the environment and ecology of 'Earth' our home for the present and future generations whilst interpreting environmental laws, lean in favour of protection. The questions raised by the petitioners and which fall for our consideration, give rise to a host of legal issues. Can the State, citing its financial inability to provide housing to encroachers on public and private lands residing in structures which came up before 1-1-1995 to whom it has granted protection from eviction or its inability to free RG a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-18-2006
Reported in : 2007(5)BomCR839
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2. Rule By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. Since common question of law and facts arises in both the petitions and it pertain to the same premises, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.4. The petitioner challenges the judgment and decree of eviction passed against the petitioner by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court as well as the order of fixation of standard rent passed by the Trial Court and up-held by the lower Appellate Court. The eviction has been ordered on two grounds. Firstly on account of default in payment of rent and secondly on the ground of bonafide need of the premises to the land-lord.5. The challenge to the decree of eviction is two fold. Firstly that the proceedings initiated by the respondent land-lord were admittedly under old Rent Act namely. The Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging Rates Control Act, 1947, however, the same were initiated after the commencemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-02-2006
Reported in : 2006(4)BomCR653; 2006(6)MhLj584
S.U. Kamdar, J. 1.. The present suit is filed for a decree of declaration that the defendant has no right, title or interest to carry on the business of Messrs. Narshi Hansraj or any other business in the suit premises namely, Shop No. 7-B, Navratan Villa, 279A, Lakhamshi Napu Road, Matunga, Bombay 400 019 and that he is a trespasser in respect thereof. By prayer Clauses (c) and (d) a decree for possession couched in the form of mandatory as well as prohibitory injunction has been sought. Prayer Clause (e) seeks a decree for a sum of Rs. 9,900/- towards the arrears of royalty for a period from 1.11.1978 to 2.12.1979 at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. By prayer Clause (f) damages in the form of compensation or future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 25/-per day has been sought. There are various other interim reliefs in the present suit. 2. Some of the material facts, briefly enumerated are as under :3. The original plaintiff Lakchand Dhanji Shah was an executor appointed under a will ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-28-2006
Reported in : 2006(5)BomCR74
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The 1st Petitioner herein is a cooperative housing society having its building on Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg (formerly known as 'Pedder Road') in South Mumbai. The 2nd Petitioner is its Managing Committee member.2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the No Objection Certificate dated 19th October 2001 issued by Respondent No. 2 -Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) (constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976) in favour of Respondent No. 7. This N.O.C. permits Respondent No. 7 to demolish his old four storey building 'Govind Niwas' situated behind the building of the 1st Petitioner Society and to construct over there a 18 storey tower for the claimed reason of housing the erstwhile 31 occupants of this building. This permission to demolish and to construct the new building with a Floor Space Index (FSI) of 2.5 is given under the Development Control Regulation (DCR) 33(7) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-15-2006
Reported in : 2006BomCR(Cri)728
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus or the directions in like manner impugns the order of detention dated 13-5-2005 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Secretary), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and the Detaining Authority by invoking powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'). The said order was served on the detenu on or about 20/5/2005 and he was taken in detention on that day. A communication bearing No. PSA -1105/2/SPL-3(A) dated 13/5/2005 was also issued by the said Detaining Authority and served on him on or about 20/5/2005 along with the list of documents. This communication had set out the statements and grounds of detention on the basis of which the impugned order was passed. Admittedly the copies of the documents mentioned in the list of documents were also served upon the detenu along with the detention order. 2. On 30/11/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-01-2006
1. Heard both sides at length on 1-2-2006, 6-2-2006 and 7-2-2006. Under the impugned order, customs duty demand of Rs. 8,48,16,660/- and excise duty demand of Rs. 14,13,208/-have been confirmed and penalties amounting to Rs. 8,84,16,660/- and Rs. 14,13,208/- have also been imposed.2. By written synopsis dated 24-3-2006, the Id. Advocate for the appellants has summarized his arguments as follows: The imported Ascorbic Acid - FCC grade IV and TMBA were relabeled by the appellants. A.1 The show cause notice (internal page 11, bottom page 318 of Vol.-II) reads as under: It is noticed that Shri Lalit Modi in his statement dated 4-1-2001, categorically stated that Ascorbic Acid IP. and TMBA were not actually manufactured in their factory. He further stated that the company sold the said goods imported by them, as such without doing any processing, in the very same drums in which the raw materials were received, after replacing the outer labels.... A.2 The appellants had affixed a label on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-23-2006
Reported in : [2006]9SOT322(NULL)
ORDERG.C. Gupta, J.M.The short issue requiring our adjudication in this case is whether or not the allowances received by the assessee - who is a commercial pilot working for Indian Airlines Ltd. while he is away from his normal place of duty in connection with the flying duties, are exempt under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and if these are held to be exempt, to what extent exemption under section 10(14)(1) can be granted in the absence of actual evidence of expenditure incurred by the assessee.2. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1990-91 and the assessment order in question is framed under section 144 read with section 147(a) of the Act.3. Grounds of appeal as taken by the revenue are as follows :1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to allow exemption of allowances received on duty abroad under section 10(14)(ii) to the extent of 50 per cent of the al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-15-2006
Reported in : (2007)(209)ELT427Tri(Mum.)bai
1. As per facts on records, which are relevant for the purposes of disposing of the present appeal, the appellant is a Full Fledged Money Changer (hereinafter referred to as FFMC). For the said purpose, they have a proper licence issued by the Reserve Bank of India from the year 1991-92, in terms of the provisions of Section 7 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. The said licence stands renewed by the RBI from time to time. In terms of the said licence, the appellant is permitted to stock and sell VISA Brand Travellers' Cheque (hereinafter referred to TC's) of Arab Financial Services. They have the proper permission from RBI to sell said brand TCs to other FFMCs in India.2. For the above purpose, they entered into an agreement with M/s. Time Travel & Cargo (hereinafter referred to as TTC), on 21/03/97, appointing them as their sub agent for stocking and selling TCs of VISA brand. The said M/s. TTC is duly licensed to operate as FFMC by RBI. In terms of the said agreement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-26-2006
Reported in : 2007(1)BomCR476
Abhay S. Oka, J.1. Rule. Shri Sawant learned G.P. waives service for Respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 6. Shri Utangale waives service for Respondent No. 2, Shri Shah waives service for Respondent No. 4 and Shri Jakhadi waives for Respondent No. 5. Shri Patwardhan waives service for Respondent No. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the Counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is immediately taken up for final hearing. The contesting Respondents have already filed their replies. The Petitioners have filed their rejoinder also. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India interalia seeks to challenge the orders of eviction dated 4th March 2005 issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board) against the members of the Petitioner No. 1-proposed society under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Slum Act')....
Tag this Judgment!