Mumbai Court April 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.
Goyal Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT608Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The stay application arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II. In the impugned order, the Commissioner demanded Rs. 53,74,778/- being duty leviable under proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act on finished goods, viz. draw twisted yarn, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- under Rule 25 f the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and demanded interest etc. under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act.2. Briefly the facts are that the applicant company removed final products mentioned above to another 100% EOU, Ganesh Overseas Inc., on deemed export basis vide several invoices and ARE-3s/AR-3As without payment of duty. Investigation revealed that the said Ganesh Overseas has not re-warehoused the goods so removed. As the goods were not re-warehoused, the above said duty was demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with the erstwhile Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, in whose jurisd...
NavIn Chander Advani Vs. Leena @ Diviya NavIn Advani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Bom277; 2005(4)ALLMR61; 2005(4)BomCR48; II(2005)DMC476
S.B. Mhase, J.1. Heard.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Family Court, Pune on 15th October, 2003 in Marriage Petition No. A-1603 of 2000 whereby the family court returned the petition filed by the present appellant for its presentation before proper forum. The family court has noted that the appellant and the respondent have married in U.S.A. The parties have last resided in U.S.A. and the respondent lived in U.S.A. and, therefore, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. This observation and the reasoning given by the family court are not proper and legal in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. This marriage petition has been filed by the appellant invoking the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. He has pleaded that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 19th July, 1998 according to Hindu Vedic rites and it was registered on 12th August, 1998 before the Registrar of San-Jose California Sta...
Bharat Tukaram Redkar, Etc. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj317
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. These petitions take exception to the order dated July 13, 2004 passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the revision applications preferred by the Petitioners in the respective petition, essentially on the reasoning that it was not open to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to entertain the application for discharge at the instance of the Petitioners, having regard to the fact that the trial was transferred before the Chief Judicial Magistrate by the Special Judge in exercise of powers under section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. To that extent, the observations made by the Sessions Court in the impugned order is correct. I see no reason to depart from the view so expressed by the Sessions Court. 3. The Petitioner(s) in the respective petition were arraigned as accused in respective CRs. for offences under section 5(1)(c) and (d) read with section 5(2) and section 13(1)(c) and (d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Cor...
Vibra Fibre P. Ltd. and Rajneesh Agarwal and Associates P. Ltd. Vs. Ar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR914; I(2006)BC461; 2005(3)BomCR537; 2005(2)MhLj1160
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present chamber summons is taken out by the applicant inter-alia for raising an attachment under order 21 rule 54 of the CPC in respect of office premises bearing no.35 situated on the 3rd floor, Atlanta Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. This chamber summons is taken out in the background of the facts which briefly stated are as under : 2. On 3/12/2002 the plaintiff filed a summary suit in this court being Summary Suit no. 2228 of 2000. The said suit was for the recovery of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest thereon. A summons for judgment was taken out being no. 170 of 2001 and in the said summons for judgment a decree came to be passed against the defendant for the sum of Rs.84,97,476/-. 3. It is an admitted position that the defendant judgment debtor was the owner of a premise bearing no. 35 situated in Atlanta Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. The defendant proposed to sell the said premises to the applicant herein and in pursuance of the said arrangement w...
S.S. Mhatre and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR501; 2005(3)MhLj34
ORDERS.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is filed inter alia seeking relief that the order dated 11.1.1994 passed in Misc. Petition No. 43 of 1993 sanctioning the sale of the property by the Board of Trustees to the original respondent no. 10 be recalled and set aside. Further reliefs is also claimed that the said agreement for sale be declared null and void. Pending the hearing of the petition it is claimed that this Court should grant injunction restraining the respondents from implementing the said agreement dated 14.2.1994. Some of the background material facts in which the present reliefs are sought briefly set out are as under : 2. On 6.11.1930 a scheme was propounded before this Court in respect of Worli Gupchar & Bhoeye Sansthan Trust. The said scheme inter alia provided the said object as a charity and for the benefit of the members of Pathare Kshatriya Caste community. Under the said scheme all the assets and properties vest in the Official Trustee appointed by the State. ...
M.N. Chhaya and anr. Vs. Mr. P.R.S. Mani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR52; 2005(3)BomCR497; [2005]127CompCas863(Bom); 2005(3)MhLj29; [2005]63SCL509(Bom)
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. These two original summons are taken out under the High Court (Original Side) Rules and both are substantially identical. These two originating summons deal with two segments of the employees, one workers category and second officers category in a company known as SKF Ball Bearing Company Private Limited. These originating summonses as well as the suits are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under : 3. A private trust was floated known as SKEFKO Employees' Benefit Trust. The said trust was constituted under a Deed of Trust dated 18.4.1973 and the main object of the said trust was to provide for various benefits to the employees of a company own as SKF Ball Bearing Company Private Limited. The trust was settled by the said company known as SKF Ball Bearing Company Private Limited. The name of the said company was subsequently changed to Skefko India Bearing Co. Limited. At the time when the trust was settled th...
Gurudas S/O Dhondba Dadmal Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrut ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR479; 2005(3)MhLj607
B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent heard finally.2. Smt. S. W. Deshpande, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Shri Charpe, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Shri Deshpande, learned A.G.P. waives notice on behalf ofrespondent No. 3.3. By way of present petition, the petitioner impugns the termination order dated 24-1-2002 issued by respondent No. 2.4. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Driver vide order dated 5th May, 1990 in a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner claimed to be belonging to 'Mana Tribe' which finds place at Entry No. 18 in Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Order (Amended Act) 1976. Since the petitioner claimed to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the tribal claim of the petitioner came to be referred to respondent No. 1 Committee for verification. Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee though found that all the documents pertaining to the petitioner and his ancestor...
Shivaji Shivlingappa Kadge and ors. Vs. Chief Officer, Municipal Counc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR424; 2005(3)MhLj681
D.S. Zoting, J.1. Heard Shri S. V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri P. F. Patni, Advocate for the respondent.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent, taken up for hearing.3. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16-8-2004 passed by the Extra Joint District Judge, Aurangabad in M.A.R.J.I. No. 25 of 2004. The petitioners have filed M.A.R.J.I. No. 25 of 2004 before the District Court for condonation of delay of 139 days in filing the appeal against the decree of mesne profit dated 28-7-2003. The delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 has become Karta of Joint Hindu family after the death of Shivlingappa and he was looking after the entire affairs of the family. However, he has become suddenly ill due to disturbance in cervical cord and he was almost become crippled and as such, he was not in a position to move from one place to another. Therefore, he was shifted to the hospital at Puttur in A...
Mangesh Govind Patane Vs. Nagesh Vasant Kadam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR56; 2005(4)BomCR554
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner is the original defendant and the respondents are the original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and bonafide and reasonable requirement of the landlord. At the trial, the plaintiffs, inter alia, examined Ms. Samta Kadam, wife of plaintiffs 2, who holds the power of attorney of the plaintiff. The said power of attorney is at 'Ex-68. The defendant examined himself. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs had not proved that the defendant is a defaulter. However, the trial Court held the plaintiffs have proved that the plaintiffs required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide and that greater hardship will be caused to the plaintiffs if the decree of eviction is not passed.2. In the appeal carried from the said judgment and order, the lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had proved that the defendant is a defaulter. The lower Appellate Court confirmed the findings of fact ...
Noble Asset Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: [2006]132CompCas543(Bom); 2005(187)ELT438(Bom)
ORDER1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing by consent of parties.This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), respondent No. 2 herein ('impugned order' for short) whereby the seized rig, which was provisionally released in favour of the petitioner is ordered to be confiscated under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act' for short) with further direction to forthwith encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 15 crore of HSBC Bank given by M/s. Noble Asset Co. Ltd. to secure the amount of fine. In addition to this, a demand for duty of Rs. 7,89,53,162/- also came to be confirmed against the petitioner. The petitioner also prayed for direction against the respondent No. 2 not to encash the bank guarantee pending disposal of stay application to be filed by the petitioner before the Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (the Tribunal' for short).2. During the course of hear...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »