Court : Mumbai
N.M. Jamdar, J. 1. The president of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, on 5 March 2013 exercising his powers under Section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, has constituted a special bench of three members to hear the appeal filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, by this writ petition has challenged this order of the president. 2. Before we proceed, it will be useful to advert to the legal provision regarding constitution of a special bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Central Government under Section 252 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), is empowered to constitute an Appellate Tribunal to hear the appeals arising under the Act. The Appellate Tribunal consists of judicial and accountant members. The Central Government is also empowered to appoint a president and senior vice president. The Appellate Tribunal exercises and discharges powers through benches constituted by the president of the Appellate Tribunal as per Section 255 of the Act. Section 255 reads as under: "25...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1972)74BOMLR320; 1972MhLJ618
Vaidya, JJ.1. This petition raises a difficult question under the Bombay Civil Services Rules, as amended by the Bombay Civil Services (7th Amendment) Rules, 1971.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated June 9, 1971 and the order dated July 21, 1971 purporting to have been passed by the Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra State, under the said Amendment Rules of 1971 compulsorily retiring the petitioner 'from the date of expiry of three months' period from the date of receipt of the notice' dated July 21, 1971.3. The petitioner was born on December 24, 1918. He was commissioned as an Officer in the Indian Army and after his service of 4 years he was relieved from the Army in the year 1946. He was then selected for training at the Police Training Centre at Nasik. After completion of the training, he was appointed as a Sub Inspector of Police at Poona in the year 1948. He was confirmed in that post with effect from July 1, 1949. On July 3, 1968 he was promoted to officiate as I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1980)82BOMLR290; 1979MhLJ391
Deshmukh, C.J.1. This petition has been referred to the division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court as there is conflict of views between the judgments of this Court regarding the correct meaning and interpretation of the provisions of Clause (a) of Sub-section (5) of Section 33B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'). Along with the petition has been placed Civil Application No. 3694 of 1977 for orders. That was a civil application for amendment in view of the Forty-second Constitutional Amendment. However, the application does not survive and has been withdrawn by Mr. Rane and no order is required to be passed on this civil application.2. The facts for the purpose of the controversy leading to the reference to the division Bench are these : The original petitioner, Shamrao Dattatraya Gosavi is now dead. However, we are referring to him as the petitioner in this judgment throughout for the purpose of convenience...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1980CriLJ13
Masodkar, J.1. All these three matters have been filed by the State and they arise out of a trial of six respondents-accused upon the allegation that at village Kanfodi on September 2, 1969 these accused were the members of the unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object voluntarily caused grievous hurts with-dangerous weapons to P.W. 1 Ramdas and his brother P. W. 2 Jagannath,. both sons of P. W. 8 Tukaram.2. That case .which was registered as Criminal Case No. 442 of 1970 had a very chequered course. The Magistrate concerned framed a charge against all these respondents mentioning therein that they caused hurt to one Tukaram Bokade and omitting to mention the names of Ramdas and Jagannath. The offences with which these respondents were charged were under Section 148 and Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing the prosecution evidence, by the judgment of December 22, 1970 the learned Magistrate recorded conviction under Section 326 read w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)45TTJ(Mumbai)77
ORDERM. A. AJINKYA, A. M. :These are seven appeals, four by the assessee relating to the asst. yrs. 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 & 1980-81 and three by the Department relating to asst. yrs. 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1980-81. All these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a consolidated order. These are appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) dt. 24th June, 1986 for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 to 1980-81. The issue concerns the leviability of penalty under S. 271(1) (c) of the Act, which for the relevant years amounted to Rs. 3,42,000; Rs. 2,20,470; Rs. 2,16,000 and Rs. 2,32,000 respectively. In para 3 of his order, the CIT(A) has given details of returned income, assessed income, concealed income and the penalties levied for the 4 years. The facts leading to the levy of these penalties are briefly as follows.2. The assessee is a firm artist. She had offered an amount of Rs. 25,00,000 for taxation under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme in 1971. Thereafter, on 13th Oct., 1980, she made ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The plaintiff No.1, which is a registered public trust engaged in educational activities and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 who are the trustees of plaintiff No.1 Trust, have filed the present suit for infringement of their trademark, namely, Institute of Technology and Management and ITM. The plaintiffs have prayed for perpetual injunction against the defendants from using the impugned marks ITM and Institute of Technology and Management and/or ITM University. The plaintiffs have along with the suit filed notice of motion praying for order of injunction restraining the defendants from using the aforesaid marks. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 was registered with the Charity Commissioner on 8th October 1993. It is their further case that after registration the plaintiffs have established various educational institutions in association with Southern New Hampshire College. It is their case that the plaintiffs, since last two decades, are conducting various education cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2.Petitioners in all these petitions are prospective applicants who are desirous of participating in the process initiated by Respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., for making appointment to the post of Electrical Assistant (Vidyut Sahayyak). Petitioners are seeking direction to the Respondent-Company to provide maximum age relaxation up to 45 years to the petitioners belonging to Project/Earthquake Affected Persons category in the advertisement no.1/2012 published on 08.06.2012. It is also prayed to declare that petitioners belonging to age group of 18 to 45 years are qualified and entitled to apply for the post of Electrical Assistant and to direct the Respondent-Company to consider candidature of petitioners for the said post. Petitioners are also seeking to quash advertisement no.1/2012 being in contravention of Government Resol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties at length. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3. The issue that has been raised for the consideration of this Court is as regards whether a temporary employee or a deemed confirmed employee could be terminated by issuance of a stigmatic order without an opportunity of hearing and/or enquiry. 4. A host of contentions have been set out by the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Issue before me is as to whether the impugned order of termination is stigmatic and if so, whether it is sustainable without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is in this backdrop that I would be adverting to those submissions of the respective sides, which I find are germane to the cause of action. 5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 24.7.2006 by the first respondent - Educational Institution in the second respondent School. It is not in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, in Mundkar Revision Application No. 2 of 1996. 3. The petitioners are the legal heirs of original defendant nos.1 and 2 in the suit filed for eviction against the original defendants 1 and 2 and the respondents are the legal heirs of deceased original plaintiff. The respondents had sought vacant possession of House No. 43/9, Survey No.159/9 of village Candolim (hereinafter referred to as the suit house) vide Civil Suit No. 107 of 1970 instituted before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, Goa. According to the petitioners, this suit was filed by the respondents out of grudge that respondents nurtured against the petitioners on account of the petitioners having lodged a criminal complaint under Section 295 of Indian Penal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR125
Madon, J.1. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed on the Original Side of this High Court, Bhatt J., by his judgment and order dated November 25/26, 1975 set aside the orders dated July 15, 1975 passed by the appellant prohibiting publication of articles, reports, letters and quotations, aggregating in all to eleven in number, intended for publication in the August 1975 issue of the monthly journal the 'Freedom First' edited by the respondent. Bhatt J., also issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellant, his officers, subordinates, servants, agents and successors-in-office to withdraw or cancel the said orders and further directing the appellant to permit the publication of the said articles, reports, letters and quotations and further directing the appellant, his officers, subordinates, servants and agents to forbear from acting in furtherance or implementation of the said orders. Bhatt J., further ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent the costs of the...
Tag this Judgment!