Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(4)ALLMR108; 2008(5)BomCR163; (2008)110BOMLR1617; 2008(5)MhLj300
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In all the above Petitions, the issue involved is with regard to the special responsibility cast on the Governor of the State of Maharashtra, with regard to development of Vidharbha area. The present area of Vidharbha was earlier included in the erstwhile state of Madhya Pradesh. The demand for the separate state of Vidharbha was duly endorsed by the then Madhya Pradesh Legislature.This was seen as a conflict with the demand made by the Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement in the erstwhile area of Bombay for the creation of a Marathi speaking state.2. In furtherance of the proposal of a Linguistic Marathi speaking province,the then leaders of Vidharbha and Western Maharashtra entered into an agreement known as the Akola act for formation of a federal state. Vidharbha still remained part of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh After India gained Independence, a State Re-organization Commission was formed under Mr. Justice Fazal Ali. The leaders of the Sanyukta Maharashtra moveme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)MhLj320
R.C. Chavan, J.1. Rule. By consent made returnable forthwith.2. This petition raises question of scrutiny of a migrant's claim belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur refused to verify the petitioner's caste claim by its order dated 2nd January, 2006, holding that the native place of the petitioner was Mungnapar, District: Chhindwara (M.P.) and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to have his claim scrutinized by the said Committee.3. We have heard learned Advocate Shri Borkar for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. Shri Fulzele for respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Shri P.B. Patil for respondent No. 2-Caste Scrutiny Committee.4. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sudhakar Vitthal Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra reported at : (2004)9SCC481 , where the Court had specifically considered the question of an applicant, original resident of Chhindwara district of Madhya Pradesh, seeking verification of his caste claim in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2008(119)FLR124]; (2009)ILLJ69Bom; 2008(5)MhLj788
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order dated 14th February, 2008 of the Industrial Court at Satara by which, pending the hearing and final disposal of a complaint of Unfair Labour Practices, the petitioner was restrained from giving effect to an order dated 28th January, 2008 by which the employees of the factory at Satara were transferred to the factory at Sinnar. The petitioner conducts a factory at Satara which is engaged in the business of manufacturing luggage and about 171 employees have been employed at the unit. In April, 2007, a scheme of arrangement was formulated under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by and as a result of which the industrial unit belonging to a company by the name of Artistocrat Luggage Limited came to be transferre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR1080; 2009(1)Bom.C.R.(Cri.)466
Naresh H. Patil and P.R. Borkar, JJ.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of learned Counsel for parties.2. This petition is filed for direction to respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee to prosecute respondent No. 2 under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001') by issuing necessary writ.3. Facts which appear from the record are that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 had contested elections of Khultabad Municipal Council and both were declared elected as Councillors in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 23.1.2002, copy of which is produced at Exh. 'A' with the petition.4. Respondent No. 2 had contested election from a ward which was reserved for Other Backward Class. Respondent No. 2 claimed that he be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(2)BomCR633; [2008]82SCL172(Bom)
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The dispute in the suit and in the Notice of Motion relates to a shareholding of 19,25,992 shares of the Defendants in the First Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs seek specific performance of an agreement by which the Defendants agreed, according to the Plaintiffs, to sell their shareholding of 9,62,996 shares in the First Plaintiff which, together with the accretion of bonus shares totals up to 19,25,992 shares. The Plaintiffs claim that there was an agreement by which these shares were to be sold to the Second Plaintiff at and for a consideration of Rs. 240/- per share. There is a claim for damages in the amount of Rs. 461.41 crores in the event that the Court comes to the conclusion that specific performance cannot be granted. The interlocutory relief which is sought in the Motion is for the appointment of a Receiver and for an injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating the shares and exercising any rights in respect of the shares including voting rights or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The Department has filed the present appeal against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 07.06.2004 on the following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of 'unabsorbed loss on capital expenditure on Scientific research & development of the demerged company and treating the same as accumulated loss/depreciation loss as per provisions of Section 32(2) and hence to be treated at par for the purpose as contemplated Under Section 71A(4) of the I-T Act 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that M/s. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. (de-merged company) had a Vegetable Seeds Division, which was separated by way of de-merger duly approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide its order dated 20.09.2000 w.e.f.01.04.2000. As a result of the aforesaid de-merger, the resulting company, i.e., M/s. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. (assessee) was created.Before de-merger, there was unabsorbed depreciation amo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR716; 2008(1)BomCR126; 2008(2)MhLj179
ORDERR.M. Borde, J.1. Some essential facts, giving rise to this petition, can be summarised as below:Petitioner claims to be belonging to 'Chhatri', Scheduled Tribe. He secured certificate on 29.01.1993, issued by Taluka Executive Magistrate, Nanded, certifying therein that petitioner is member of 'Chhatri', Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner was employed as 'Wahini Madatnis' with Respondent No. 3 - Maharashtra State Electricity Board as against seat earmarked for reserved category candidate on 29.03.1997. The tribe certificate secured by petitioner came to be referred to the Scrutiny Committee by the employer on 27.06.2002.2. It is contended by the petitioner that Respondent No. 3 issued notice directing him to produce caste validity certificate as expeditiously as possible, failing which, it was threatened that his services shall stand terminated. Petitioner, who was apprehending order of termination of his services, approached this Court seeking protection till Caste Scrutiny Committee dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2009]149CompCas129(Bom); [2008]82SCL303(Bom)
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. A founder father, late Dhirubhai Ambani set up the Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) some time in the year 1973, who ventured along with the time, into oil, gas, refining and exploration apart from other textile, yarn, polyester, petrochemicals and communication business and later stages of life, with two sons-Mr.Mukesh and Mr. Anil Ambani. All are aware of these facts and figures specially the shareholders of the respective companies at all material times.2. Some time in the year 1999, the Government announced a New Exploration and Licensing Policy, 1999 (NELP) This policy, for the first time, provided that various petroleum blocks could be awarded for exploration, development and production of petroleum and gas to private entities.3. By virtue of Article 297 of the Constitution of India, the Petroleum in its natural state in the territory waters and the continental shelf of India is vested in the Union of India (The Government). The Oil Fields (Regulation and Dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR4; 2007(6)BomCR813
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Sixty-two, Civil Engineer graduates, working as Sub Divisional Engineers, in the Public Works Department of the State of Maharashtra, filed an Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, being O.A. No. 473 of 1998. By the said O.A. they originally sought a declaration that Rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class I and the Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class II (Regulation of Seniority and preparation and revision of seniority lists) Rules, 1983 is unconstitutional. The reliefs sought were:(a) That this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to declare Rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class I and the Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class II (Regulation of Seniority and preparation and revision of seniority lists) Rules, 1983 as unconstitutional and allow this petition with all consequential benefits.The Consequential Prayer Clause reads as under:(b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to give necessary directions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. These cross appeals are preferred by the assessee as well as the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98. Since these appeals were heard together the same are being disposed off through this consolidated order. We, however, prefer to adjudicate these appeals one by one.2. Through this appeal, the assessee has assailed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds: 3. The first ground relates to disallowance of carry forward of unabsorbed investment allowance of the erstwhile A.K Structural Foam Ltd. (AKSF) on the ground that it can only be carry forward and set off for a period of 8 years from the assessment year for which it is related i.e. Assessment Year 1988-89 and the investment allowance cannot be carried forward for set off for assessment year 1997-98, even though the amalgamation of AKSF with the assessee was effective from 1-4-1991 i.e. relevant to assessment year 1992-93.4. The brief facts borne out fr...
Tag this Judgment!