Court : Mumbai Goa
MohitS. Shah, CJ. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed in April 2013, the Petitioner has challenged : (a) the orders dated 30 November 1988, 8 September 1993, 20 May 1996 and 11 September 1996, and other orders passed by Mamlatdar of Mormugao Taluka in South Goa District in the years from 1992 to 1996, declaring Respondent no.3 Victor Luis Monteiro as tenant of the properties in question in Goa described in para 2 of the writ petition ('the properties'). All these orders were passed by the Mamlatdar under the provisions of Chapter-IIA of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Goa, Daman and Diu Act 7 of 1964) ('Tenancy Act' for the sake of brevity) read with the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Special Rights and Privileges of Tenants) Rules, 1967 ('Special Rules' for the sake of brevity) declaring Respondent no.3 as tenant of the properties; (b) œthe consequential impugned orders? permitting Respondent no.3 to sell some...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... the reports submitted by economic office wing so far. 92. in my view dr tulzapurkar learned senior counsel is right in his submission that opinion of the police officer making investigation is not binding on the magistrate and notwithstanding the opinion of the magistrate to the contrary, the magistrate can order further investigation. similarly ..... supreme court in case of hope plantations ltd.(supra), bhanu kumar jain (supra), ishwar dutt (supra), arjun singh (supra) and this court in case of indo-pharma pharmaceutical works private limited has considered this issue at length, relevant paragraphs thereof are highlighted in earlier part of this judgment. it is held that principles of ..... in this proceedings filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the act. 11. dr. tulzapurkar placed reliance on the judgment of this court in case of indo-pharma pharmaceutical works private limited vs. pharmaceutical company of india reported in 1977 (80) bom.l.r. 73 in support of his submission that issue of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By an order dated 29th January, 2013 passed by this court, three issues were framed as preliminary issues under the provisions of order XIV rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which are set out hereinafter and are answered in the later part of the judgment. By the said order dated 29th January, 2014 this court clarified that the parties shall advance their submissions on these three preliminary issues and settlement of remaining issues was accordingly postponed till decision of this court on those three issues was rendered. Sr.NoISSUESFINDING1Whether the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court to try, entertain and dispose of the present suit is barred under Section 269UN of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as pleaded in paragraph 1 of the Written Statement and/or Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?In the affirmative2Whether the law of limitation bars the present suit?Need not be answered3Whether the plaintiff has the locus standi to maintain the present suit as pleaded in paragraph 11 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By an order dated 29th January, 2013 passed by this court, three issues were framed as preliminary issues under the provisions of order XIV rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which are set out hereinafter and are answered in the later part of the judgment. By the said order dated 29th January, 2014 this court clarified that the parties shall advance their submissions on these three preliminary issues and settlement of remaining issues was accordingly postponed till decision of this court on those three issues was rendered. Sr.NoISSUESFINDING1Whether the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court to try, entertain and dispose of the present suit is barred under Section 269UN of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as pleaded in paragraph 1 of the Written Statement and/or Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?In the affirmative2Whether the law of limitation bars the present suit?Need not be answered3Whether the plaintiff has the locus standi to maintain the present suit as pleaded in paragraph 11 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION.................................................... 4 B. FACTS..................................................................... 6 C. MAINTAINABILITY...............................................12 D. LIMITATION..........................................................78 E. RELIEFS AND ORDER...........................................87 A. INTRODUCTION 1. The facts of the case are straightforward. The issues they raise, though narrow, are not. A very great deal of learning has been cited on both sides of the debate: some of the precedents are very old indeed. Counsel have argued that later decisions effectively upturn the older ones, even if they do not say so in so many words. There are two principal issues of law: first, limitation; and, second, whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is ousted in claim such as this because of the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 ( MPTA ) (Earlier the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Act 29 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)(69)ELT497Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector on the directions of the Board [vide F. No. 199/262/92-Jud. Cell (BMB) Order No. 47/R-93 dated 15-3-1993] against the Order in original No. 30/92 dated 8-4-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II.2. Though this appeal canvasses certain points, which call for determination of value and classification and hence normally would call for consideration by the Special Bench, Shri Mondal, the Id. S.D.R.pleads that as per instructions, he only pleads for a remand of the case on certain specific short grounds, which would establish that the Collector has not been fair to the Department and has passed the impugned order, without considering the evidences placed before him and bringing in certain suspect documents, without giving any opportunity to the investigation (department) to enquire into these documents before they are taken on record and they were acted upon for drawing conclusions adverse to the department. He assured that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)86ITD791(Mum.)
1. The assessee in these appeals is Raymond Ltd., a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of suitings, engineers' steel files and rasps and cement in India. In order to muster funds for the purpose of putting BD facilities for the production of cold-rolled steel products including sillicon products, the Greenfield Textile project and the normal capital expenditure requirements, the company proposed to issue Global Depositary Receipts (GDRs) in the international market.Two types of GDRs were contemplated--(1) International GDRs which were offered to investors outside the United States of America (USA) and India restricted to offshore transactions, and (2) GDRs under Rule 144A of the Securities Regulations of the USA, offered in the USA to "qualified institutional buyers" (QIBs). The total number of GDRs issued was 37,68,844. The issue price of each GDR was US $ 15.92. Each GDR represented 2 shares of the company of the face value of Rs. 10 per share. Approximately US $58 mi...
Tag this Judgment!