Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)101BOMLR811
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondent waive service. By consent heard forthwith.2. These are three petitions out of a group of petitions wherein the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Cases launched against them or for directions not to prosecute. For the purpose of convenience out of these 3 petitions chosen, one is one from Mumbai and the others are from Thane. The facts in the Mumbai case are similar to all other cases.3. Bare facts which are essential for deciding the issues in controversy need to be stated, which are as follows:-In Writ Petition No. 700 of 1998, it is the case of the petitioner, that he is conducting Video Parlors since 1987 at various places in Mumbai. One such parlour was raided by the Police attached to Malwani Police Station on 27th April, 1998 at about 5.30 p. m. A case has been filed against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Magistrate's 42nd Court, Borivali, being L.A.C. Case No. 788 of 1998. It is alleged by the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)840
ORDERBy The BenchThe assessee- company and the revenue have filed cross-appeals against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Central-II, Mumbai. Since both these matters arise out of a single order, therefore, these appeals are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The assessee had filed an application for admission of 2 additional grounds as under :Before we proceed to consider each of the issues involved, it is essential to consider the admission of additional grounds.'(1) That a sum of Rs. 2,41,89,563 paid by the appellant-company during the assessment year 1995-96 and incurred by the company during assessment year 1994-95 be allowed as accrued liability in assessment year 1994-95.(2) That a sum of Rs. 1,85,00,000 incurred by the appellant-company towards technical know-how be allowed in entirety under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, in the place of the original claim of 1/6th of Rs. 1,85,00,000 under section 35AB.'3. The authorised representative in support of the additional gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1939Bom354; (1939)41BOMLR787
Broomfield, J.1. First Appeal No. 95 of 1936 is an appeal against a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Ahmedabad, awarding the plaintiff Rs. 5,044 in respect of arrears of maintenance. The facts leading to the litigation were shortly these. The plaintiff's husband Ambalal, who was a wealthy and pious Hindu, died on July 27, 1929, leaving properties immoveable and moveable which have been described in a schedule annexed to the plaint. They consisted of lot No. 1 a large residential house in Jamalpur, Ahmedabad, containing several buildings in one com lot No. 2 a shop forming a portion of the above, lot No. 3 a building, and lot No. 4 a dehla also situated in Jamalpur, lot No. 5 a building known as the Apangashram or Cripples' Home which was constructed by Ambalal in his lifetime on land belonging to the temple of Shri Jagannathji, and lot No. 6 a building on the Richey Road, Ahmedabad, in which Ambalal in his lifetime had started a dispensary. The moveable properties consisted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1991)93BOMLR298; 1991CriLJ507
Kurdukar, J.1. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the detenu (petitioner) challenging the legality and correctness of the detention order dated April 24, 1990 issued by the first respondent in exercise of powers under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The order of detention is at Exh. A. Grounds of detention were formulated pari passu the order of detention and the same are annexed to this petition at Exh. B. The order of detention, grounds of detention and the material thereof were served upon the detenu and no challenge has been raised before us in that behalf.2. At the outset it may be stated that other two companion criminal petitions bearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 530 of 1990 Amir Shad Khan v. L. Hmingliana and others and Criminal Writ Petition No. 531 of 1990 Aziz Ahmedkhan alias Aziz Mohamed Khan s/o Ami...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. The constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2009 is challenged. The challenge, during the course of the hearing is to the retrospective operation of the amendment and validation which relates back to 1 April 2005 when the principal legislation came into force. Package schemes of incentive 2. Since 1964, the Government of Maharashtra had introduced Package Schemes of Incentives to achieve a dispersal of industries outside the Bombay-Thane-Pune belt and to attract industries to underdeveloped and developing areas of the State. The Package Scheme of Incentives of 1964 was followed by amended schemes in 1969, 1973, 1976, 1979 and 1983. On 30 September 1988, the State Government notified a new package scheme of incentives for the period between 1 October 1988 and 30 September 1993 with a view to rationalize the scope, scale and mode of release of incentives and accelerate the dispersal of industries from the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The above Writ Petitions have been filed invoking the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27th August 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Daman by which order the Appeals being Misc. Civil Appeal Nos.1/2009, 2/2009, 3/2009 and 4/2009 came to be allowed and resultantly the order passed by the Trial Court dated 9th January 2009 came to be set aside, resulting in the Application filed under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being allowed in terms of prayer clause 28(a) thereof, and the Injunction Application of the Petitioners above-named, who are the original Plaintiffs, came to be rejected. 2. The issue that arises in the above Petitions is therefore in two parts viz. Whether the parties are to be referred to arbitration, and Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an anti-suit injunction in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The impugned order is therefore also in two p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A short but important question that arises in this matter is, up to which date the dues of workmen are to be calculated when a Company is wound up. Whether the Companies Act, 1956 provides the date of passing the order of winding up as the only contingency or whether the Act provides any other event prior to the date of order of winding up. 2. This Company application is taken out by workmen of M/s Swadeshi Mills Co. Ltd. These workmen are five out of the 735 workmen who were employed in the Mill. They had filed proof of debt before the Official Liquidator. They inter alia claimed that they should be paid up to the date of the order of winding up. The Official Liquidator has paid them till the date of the appointment of Provisional Liquidator, taking that as the relevant date. Since this view taken by the Official Liquidator affects large number of workmen of the Mill under liquidation, and that the issue raises question of law of general importance, the learned counsel for the parties...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Admit. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 2. This is an appeal against the order and judgment of the learned company Judge admitting a petition filed by respondent No.1 for having the second respondent company Etisalat D.B. Telecom Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company") wound up under section 433 (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that it is just and equitable to do so. 3. It is convenient to refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the petition. In the petition, Respondent No.1 to this appeal was the petitioner. The appellant was respondent No.2 to the petition. Respondent No.2 to the appeal Etisalat D.B. Telecom Limited i.e. the company sought to be wound up was Respondent No.1 to the petition (hereinafter referred to as "the company"). Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - Delphi Investment Limited and Genex Exim Ventures Private Limited were respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the petition. 4. The petitioner contended that it is jus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respective Respondents waive service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties, in view of urgency expressed by all, as the issues relate to the admission of Post Graduate course in Medicine for the year 2014-2015. 2. The relevant information of the Rule is as under:- œ1.2 This procedure will be called as œProcedure for selection and admission to medical post-graduate courses at the State Government Medical Colleges, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Medical Colleges, Central Government Institutions like Tata Memorial Hospital and all other Private Medical Colleges/Institutions who opt for admission to PG courses through PGM-CET 2014.? The relevant rules of Post-Graduate seat distribution are as under:- œ7.1 The seats available for admission to medical postgraduate courses will be distributed as 50% to all India Quota and remaining 50% to the State Quota. From the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Almost 20 years ago, on or about 5th June 1994, there was a collision at the port of Marmagoa, Goa between m.v.Sanjeevani owned by the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant vessel owned by the 2nd defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the collision was entirely due to the negligence and total and wanton dis-regard to good seamanship, collision regulations and other principles of safety and navigation by those manning the 1st defendant-vessel. The plaintiffs are claiming a sum of Rs.13,33,70,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount. 2. The defendants filed written statement and counter claim on 30.4.1996, almost 19 years ago, in which it is alleged that the incident of collision was caused by acts or omissions of the plaintiffs-vessel m.v. Sanjeevani and her complement. In the alternative it is claimed that the incident was occasioned by act of God and/or perils of the sea. The defendants are counter claiming for a decree in the sum of Rs.10,95,330/- with inte...
Tag this Judgment!