Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-11-2009
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3801; (2009)225CTR(Bom)337; [2009]184TAXMAN103(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The only question raised in all these appeals is, whether depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable on the stock exchange membership card acquired by an assessee on or after 1/4/1998 ?2. The ITAT has held that the Bombay Stock Exchange Membership Card (hereinafter referred to as the 'BSE card') acquired by an assessee on or after 1/4/1998, either by nomination or directly through the Stock Exchange is an intangible asset covered under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`Act' for short) and therefore, depreciation is allowable on the BSE Card. These appeals are filed by the revenue to challenge the aforesaid orders passed by the ITAT. 3. Since the question of law set out hereinabove is common in all these appeals, by consent, all these appeals are heard finally on the aforesaid substantial question of law and disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Mr. Gupta and Mr. Sahadevan, learned Counsel for the revenue submit that depreciation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-04-2009
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3650
A.V. Potdar, J.1. Rule.2. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally heard at the stage of admission.3. By the present writ petition under Article 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, initially the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to the first respondent to decide the appeal challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30th August 2008, with further prayers for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the sonography machine in the light of directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7973/2008 dated 17th December 2008. During pendancy of the writ petition, the prayers were added to quash and set aside the order dated 30/08/2008 passed by the 2nd respondent suspending the registration of Genetic Clinic of the petitioner at (Exh.I, paper book page No. 39) and to quash and set aside the order dated 24/03/2009 (Exh.L at paper book page No. 52) passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-17-2009
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR133; 2009(111)BomLR1745
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioners who claim that they are social workers and except Petitioner No. 3, all other Petitioners have been Members of Legislative Assembly of Maharashtra in the past. It is averred that Respondent No. 3 is a body set up by Respondent No. 1 - Union of India which had published a booklet/brochure in the name of 'JAWAHARLAL NEHRU NATIONAL RENEWAL MISSION'. Being interested in the welfare of the people of Maharashtra, the Petitioners have filed this Petition. According to the Petitioners, the action of the Respondents in adopting resolution of repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as the 'said Act') is in violation of the constitutional rights vested in the people of Maharashtra, more particularly as enumerated in Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 3 and 39 of the Constitution of India and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are failing to perform their public duties. The State Government, in the Assembly agreed to repeal the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-06-2009
Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR269; LC2010(1)13
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Advocate for the private contesting Respondents waive notice. Notice to other Respondents is dispensed with being formal parties. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Having regard to the nature of challenge involved, we decided to finally dispose of the matter at the admission stage itself, by consent.2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India essentially takes exception to the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs-Respondent No. 4 dated 7/1/2009 on the Petitioners representation by way of opposition against Patent Application No. 413/MUM/2003A. In the Petition as filed, the Petitioners at the outset have given short background of the alleged invention claimed by the Respondent No. 1. It is stated that on 26/7/1985 a Patent being US Patent No. 4529596 was granted in the United States to Sanofi S.A.... This document discloses the compound Clopidogrel. By another patent issued on 11/7/1989 to Sanofi bea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-08-2009
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR603; 2009(111)BomLR2056; 2009(4)MhLj869
Naresh H Patil, J.1. The respondent filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under Items 6,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971'). The respondent contended in the application that he was in the employment of the appellant Corporation since 1-2-1985 as a Cleaner and subsequently from the year 1986 he was working as Fitter but he was paid wages of Cleaner. It was contended by him that he was neither confirmed in service nor given regular pay scale. In the contention of the respondent he worked continuously uninterruptedly. The work was available with the appellant continuously. Some of the workers who were working in the same capacity were made permanent, they were receiving salary of Rs. 2000/- per month. The respondent worked for more than six years without proper pay scale and continuity of service. It was contended that the appellant committed unfair labour pra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-19-2009
Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) By this common judgment, we are disposing of two complaints, one filed by Dr.Vijay S. Pradhan and another filed by Shri Manharlal J. Parekh. Both of whom had filed consumer complaint against Dr.Niteen Dedhia/O.P.No.1 and Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre/O.P.No.2, since question of facts and laws involved in both these complaints are similar. 2) In Consumer Complaint No.33/2002, Dr.Vijaykumar Pradhan is the complainant. He has averred in his complaint that he is practising Paediatrician having practice of 40 years. He was President of Bombay West Suburban branch and Vice President of the Indian Medical Association, Maharashtra State Branch. He was also member of Central Council. He is therefore well known within the medical circle of Mumbai. 3) He further pleaded that he was having a cataract in the right eye which was required to be removed surgically. He therefore approached O.P.No.1 Dr.Nitin Dedhia for carrying out s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-03-2009
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Complainant- Manik alias Gangajirao Zugara More has filed this complaint against Rajasthani and Gujrathi Charitable Foundations Poona Hospital and Research Centre-O.P.No.1 and also against Port Trust Hospital, Wadala, Mumbai-O.P.No.2 alleging medical negligence on their part in respect of treatment given by both hospitals to his son-Mahendra More. 2. According to the complainant, Mahendra slipped off his motorcycle on Sinhagad Road at about 10.30 p.m. on 23/02/1997. One passerby took him to Madhukar Hospital on Sinhagad Road and since his son has having head injury, he was brought to Poona Hospital/O.P.No.1 and admitted in the said hospital. He was admitted in Intensive Care Unit (I.C.U.) of O.P.No.1 and necessary treatment was given. According to the complainant, his relative used to wait day and night outside I.C.U. to monitor the health of Mahendra. Necessary medicines, injections and equipments were brought. His son was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-04-2009
Per Shri P. N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. (1) This complaint has been filed by Complainant Mrs. Kalyani Raut, alleging medical negligence on the Part of the Opposite Parties who are Doctors by profession. (2) Stated briefly, the case of the Complainant is as under: According to Complainant, her husband Bharat Raut was suffering from some illness. He had approached Opposite Party No.3 Dr. Mahale on 19.04.2003 with complaints of swelling above medial aspect of right elbow joint. Opposite Party No.3- Dr. Mahale advised him to undergo operation in Millennium Hospital. Opposite Party No.3 falsely assured Complainant that Millennium Hospital is well equipped to perform major surgeries and to handle any complications and there are well qualified doctors in Millennium Hospital for performing surgery. As advised, her husband Mr. Raut got admitted in Millennium Hospital on 21.04.2003 at 11.00 p.m. Mr. Raut was taken to the operation theatre at 08.00 a.m. on 22.04.2003. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-22-2009
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3186
1. The appellants herein claimed themselves to be the successors intitle as well as in possession of the properties survey Nos. 53/1B, 52/1, 52/2, 133 and 46/2 situated at Chahurna (Bk), Taluka and District Ahmadnagar, from the original defendant Nos. 7 & 8 in Special Civil Suit No. 13/1956 decreed on 13.04.1956 by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmednagar. The appellants are the objectors in Special Darkhast No. 57/1977, to the executability of the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 13/1956. The objections raised by the appellants to the executability of the decree are rejected by the Collector, Ahmednagar vide his order dated 24.12.2007 and also by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar by his order dated 07.01.2008. The appellants preferred writ petition No. 276/2008 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before learned Single Judge challenging the aforesaid orders. The said writ petition is dismissed by the learned Single Judge, in motion ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-16-2009
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR719; 2009(4)BomLR1451; 2009(2)MhLj925; 2009(3)AllMR40
A.P. Lavande, J.1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 320/2008 and the reference made in Writ Petition Nos. 4910/2008 and 4911/2008 are being disposed of by the common Judgment since the question of law involved in the appeal as well as in the reference is identical.2. We have heard Mr. C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.V. Sohoni, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition Nos. 4910/2008 and 4911/2008 and Mrs. S. Wandile, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 4911/2008 and Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Wandile, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. P.C. Khajanchi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 320/2008.3. In Writ Petition Nos. 4910/2008 and 4911/2008 the learned Single Judge held that the view taken by another learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 2203/08 ( Javed Sheikh Mustaque Patel v. State of Maharashtra and O...
Tag this Judgment!