Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ramesh S/O Manohar Sangidwar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ1824; 2005(2)MhLj939
S.T. Kharche, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-12-2001 passed by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 53/94, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 13-4-1994 in Regular Criminal Case No. 28/91 (New No. 422/91) convicting the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, has been confirmed.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :(A) The motor vehicle i.e. the truck bearing No. MHG-4385 was hired by Vasanta (PW 2) for transportation of paddy. On 6-1-1991 at about 6.00 p.m. the said truck was loaded with 100 to 125 gunny bags of paddy at village Dongargaon. The petitioner-accused was the driver ...
Viju W/O Manohar Sawle Vs. Secretary, Government of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR360; [2006(108)FLR163]; (2005)IIILLJ247Bom; 2005(3)MhLj51
B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri Sundaram, the learned counsel, waives notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Motghare, the learned counsel, waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 5. Heard by consent.2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 2nd April, 2004 passed by the respondent No. 3, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for her entitlement under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 1995 Scheme).3. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under :That, the husband of the petitioner was employed with respondent No. 5 as Attendant on 1st March, 1979. Husband of the petitioner was serving with the respondent No. 5 till 31st January, 1994. He opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and look voluntary retirement with effect from 31st January, 1994. The husband of the petitioner withdrew his retiral be...
Shankarrao S/O Kashinath Pode Vs. Pandurang S/O Sambhaji Kutarmare and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: III(2007)BC65; 2006(1)MhLj191
S.T. Kharche, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition takes an exception to the order dated 4-9-2004 passed by the learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 103/04, whereby the revision has been dismissed and the order below Exh. 89 dated 27-5-2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Private Criminal Case No. 145/02 rejecting of application (Exh. 89) was confirmed.3. The respondent filed private complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 5-1-2002 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short, the Act) which was registered as Criminal Case No. 145/02. The learned Magistrate framed the charge against the accused on 28-1-2003. Thereafter the evidence of two witnesses was recorded by the learned Magistrate and after that an application (Exh. 89) was submitted by the petitioner-accused on 15-4-2004 for quashing the criminal proceedings ...
Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC261
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.2. Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 23rd October, 2000, passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 336 of 1993 whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs. 250-00.3. In the present case, before we consider the facts and circumstances, which have given rise to the prosecution of the appellant for the offence charged, we wish to mention that initially the appellant was convicted by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment and order, dated 21st November, 1994, passed in Sessions Case No. 336 of 1993, for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant ch...
Feroze Homi Duggan Vs. Benzer Interiors Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj289
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 10. None present for the defendant Nos. 2 to 9.2. This motion is taken out by the plaintiff with a prayer that the defence of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 10 to the suit be struck off on the ground that they have committed persistent breaches of the orders of this Court mentioned in prayer clause (a) of the motion and in particular the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 2nd April, 1997 passed in Appeal Lodging No. 270 of 1997 and of the undertaking given by the defendant No. 10 in the capacity as a Director of the defendant No. 1, a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit-G to the affidavit in support of the motion. In addition, an order is also sought for detention of the defendant Nos. 1 and 10 in civil prison for wilfully disobeying the aforesaid orders and committing a breach of the undertaking mentioned above. The defendant Nos. 1 and 10 oppose the motion.3. Since breach of the order d...
Ramesh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC424
S.T. Kharche, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2001 passed by learned Second Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1994, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 13.4.1994 in Regular Criminal Case No. 28 of 1991 (new No. 422 of 1991) convicting the petitioner accused for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months has been confirmed.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under:(a) The motor vehicle, i.e., the truck bearing No. MHG 4385 was hired by Vasanta, P.W. 2, for transportation of paddy. On 6.1.1991 at about 6 p.m. the said truck was loaded with 100 to 125 gunny bags of paddy at village Dongargaon. Petitioner-accused was the driver...
Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT287Tri(Mum.)bai
3. The factory premises of M/s. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (HCCBPL) at Wada, Dist. Thane, was visited by the Officers of CPU, Kalyan, Mumbai-III Commissionerate and the files/documents pertaining to the credit availed on capital goods were sought for further investigation. Records revealed that the company had availed Cenvat credit as credit on capital goods during the month of June, 2000 and July, 2000 amounting to Rs. 12,37,320/- on Black Steel Tubes, which were utilized outside the factory premises in as much as the said steel tubes were used for the pipe line connecting M/s. HCCBPL, Wada, to the river Vaitarna, situated around 12 kms. from the factory premises, thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 57AA(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as the said Rule explicitly stated that the said goods need to be used within the place of manufacture. The company had also similarly availed Cenvat credit on other items, which were used outside the factory. Further, it avai...
Hitendra Kumar U. Gadecha, Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT366Tri(Mum.)bai
2. It is seen that it is a case of import of restricted goods (gold and silver bars) based on forged, cancelled and defaced licenses for clearances of the restricted goods at concessional rate of Customs duty. The appellants appear to have forged special import licenses, conspired with the brokers and other persons and produced forged licenses and take transfer letters for clearances of the subject goods.The Commissioner as per the impugned order has imposed (i) a fine in lieu of confiscation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000,00/- (Rupees fifteen crores only), (ii) confirmed Customs Duty amounting to Rs. 4,34,99.534/- (Rupees Four crores thirty four lakhs ninety nine thousand five hundred thirty four only), (iii) imposed penalty of Rs. 4,34,99,534/- (Rupees Four crores thirty four lakhs ninety nine thousand five hundred thirty four only) & (iv) imposed penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the following persons:- Name of person Amount of penalty----------------------...
Expansion Fastner Bolt (i) Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT72Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides for some time it is found that the appeals could be disposed off as the issue lies in very narrow compass, after waiver of pre-deposit, the appeals are taken up for disposal by this order.2. It is found that duty demand had been made in this case of clubbing of clearances of this goods; duty demands have been confirmed without specifying the assessee liable to pay the demands so determined. The Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan Fabrics Distributors - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 451 (S.C.) in the similar kind of situation has directed by a remand to determine in the de novo adjudication as to on whom the duty liability has to be arrived. The person mentioned in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is required to be determined by the adjudicator and specified in the order. Since this has not been done the order of both the authorities below are set aside and matter remanded back to the Joint Commissioner, with direction to re-hear the appellant and thereafter redete...
Girish Textiles Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs (G)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT417Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed against the Order-in-Original dated 7-5-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, wherein it is determined the CIF value of the imported goods as Rs. 15/34,868.51 while ordering the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and further imposing penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the appellants.2. The appellants are 100% EOU, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of export of dyed/processed fabrics and in the business of trading in various items, including polyester fabrics.3. The appellants purchased 4 consignments of fabrics on high seas basis from M/s. Subchintak Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. N.R.International, Mumbai. Accordingly, the appellants filed 4 Bills of Entry for importing and submitted the documents, including the Procurement Certificate issued by the proper officer for warehousing the said goods into EOU. The appellants also claimed bene...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »