Mumbai Court July 2006 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.
Suresh Vishwanath Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4277
J.N. Patel, J.1. The appellant was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on a charge of having committed murder of his wife by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze and also for having treated her with cruelty. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, found the appellant guilty on both the counts and convicted him for committing offence punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court did not impose any separate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has therefore, preferred this appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence.2. In a nutshell, it is the prosecution's case that the deceased Sangita was married to the appellant serving as a Police Constable in the year 1990-91. After the marriage, the dece...
DolphIn Investment P. Ltd. Vs. C. Pinto Trade Commerce P. Ltd. and Shr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR716; [2007]138CompCas74(Bom); (2007)3CompLJ433(Bom); [2008]81SCL16(Bom)
N.A. Britto, J.1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioner for the winding up of the respondent M/s. Shri Sahajanand Investment P. Ltd. ('M/s. Sahajanand', for short) who was the principal borrower and the respondent M/s. C. Pinto Trade Commerce P. Ltd. ('M/s. Pinto Trade Commerce', for short) who was a guarantor, under the agreement between the parties dated February 17, 2000.2. The said petitions were filed under Section 433(e) of the Act (Companies Act, 1956) on the ground that the said respondents were indebted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 82,36,027 pursuant to the said agreement and also under Section 433(f) on the ground that it is just and equitable that the respondent-companies are wound up as they are running into losses.3. There is no dispute that the petitioner, both the respondents and one Jose Christovam Pinto, Proprietor of Pinto Real Estate had entered into an agreement dated February 17, 2000. In terms of the said agreement, the petitioner had advanced t...
Shree Ambay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC311
1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Gaurav Strips (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) manufacturers of M.S. Ingots falling under CET sub-heading 7206.90 had opted for payment of duty in terms of Rule 96ZO(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the basis of their annual capacity of production under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 and in terms of Rule 96ZO(3) for the year 1999-2000. The capacity of production of the induction furnace installed in their factory had been fixed by the Commissioner as 11,200 M.T per annum in terms of Section 3A(2) of the Act read with Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 communicated to the assessee vide letter dated 4.8.1998 and the assessees were required to pay excise duty accordingly. However, they paid only part amount resulting in short payment of Rs. 1,38,58,739/- during the period from March, 1998 to March, 2000. Hence, 4 show cause notices were issued proposing reco...
Desk to Desk Courier and Cargo Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: (2007)7STR515
2. At the stage of hearing stay application, it is felt desirable to dispose of the appeal itself; since the point involved in both of them is one in the same.3. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 had revised the order of the Assistant Commissioner in respect of penalty amount enhancing the same from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 2,38,486/-under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.4. Earlier the Assistant Commissioner, by his Order-in-Original dated 29-3-2004 levied Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 2,38,486/- and ordered to pay sum with appropriate rate of interest along with penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 76 and further penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act. Accordingly, the appellants have paid all these amounts. After passing the Order-in-Original by the Assistant Commissioner, whereas the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik in exercise of revisional Powe...
Suresh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC9
1. The appellants are engaged in the preparation of raw material for gutka which is in the form of raw tobacco treated with quimam and the same was marketed by them to the gutka manufacturers. The unit was visited by the officers of the Anti Evasion and after conducting investigations the officers concluded that the product manufactured by them was 'loose unbranded scented tobacco' which is rightly classified under Ch.2404.40 as chewing tobacco and preparation containing chewing tobacco. They were accordingly issued a Show Cause Notice demanding duty amounting to Rs. 1,35,525/- and seeking imposition of penalty. The matter was adjudicated wherein the duty was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- was imposed under Rule. 173Q(1) by the Commissioner.2. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the Show Cause Notice suffers an ambiguity of describing the correct status of the product i.e. whether it is chewing tobacco by itself or it is a preparation containing chewing tobac...
Shantilal Bhujbal-vaidya, a Registered Firm by Vahiwatdar and Partner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR405; 2006(6)MhLj796
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. One Ramchandra Ganpat Daskul was the owner of the agricultural land located in Survey No. 91-A admeasuring 14 acres and 14 gunthas and Survey No. 91-B admeasuring 11 acres and 12 gunthas in village Baramati, Taluka Baramati. Ramchandra left behind him wife Yamunabai and son Vasant. Shankar Parasharam Ashtekar and Vishnu Kashinath Barge had claimed tenancy rights in respect of the land in Survey No. 91-A admeasuring 14 acres and 14 gunthas, under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'the Tenancy Act'). Tenancy Application No. 2 of 1958 was filed claiming such a right and it appears that the revenue authorities had allowed the said application. The landlords i.e. Vasant and Yamunabai approached this Court in Special Civil Application No. 781 of 1961. The said petition came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court in terms of the compromise between the parties on 10-1-1962. Ashtekar and Barge were respondents in the said petition and ...
Sai Samrat Security Service and ors. Vs. Rizvi Builders and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR490; 2006(5)MhLj528
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Admit. Mr. Shetty waives notice for Respondents. He undertakes to file Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondents.3. As short question is involved, Appeal is taken up for final hearing forthwith, by consent.4. This Appeal from Order takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court dated March 10, 2006 in S.C. Suit No. 3295 of 2001 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure returning the plaint to the Plaintiffs for being presented before the appropriate Court. The sole basis on which this order has been passed can be discerned from Paragraphs 11 and 15 of the impugned Judgement. Before I advert to the said aspect, it will be apposite to reproduce the substantive relief claimed by the Plaintiffs in the said suit. The same read thus:17. The plaintiffs will rely upon the documents, a list whereof is annexed hereto. That plaintiffs, therefore, pray:(a) That the defendants, their servants, agents and employees b...
Deelip Apte Vs. Nilesh P. Salgaonkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC96; 2006(6)BomCR653
Britto N.A., J.1. The subject matter of the dispute between the complainant and the accused are three cheques which have been dishonoured, the details of which are as follows:1. Cheque No. 4605574 dated 28.11.2003 for Rs. 50.000/-.2. Cheque No. 4605575 dated 28.11.2003 for Rs. 50.000/-.3. Cheque No. 4605576 dated 1.12.2003 for Rs. 70.000/-.2. Broadly stated, the case of the complainant is that the said three cheques were given by the accused to the complainant by way of payment of Rs. 1,70,000/- advanced by the complainant to the accused in the first week of November, 2003. Likewise, it was the case of the accused that the said three cheques were given to the complainant by way of security. As regards the first two cheques, the complainant sent a notice to the accused dated 1.12.2003 and regarding the third cheque, the complainant sent the notice dated 9.1.2004. Both the notices were sent by registered A.D. and upon non-compliance of the said notices, the accused filed two complaints. ...
Rai Bahadur Gujarmal Modi and Brothers P. Ltd. Vs. Godfrey Philips Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas148(Bom); [2008]85SCL290(Bom)
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The company application seeks the following relief:(a) that this hon'ble court give directions to said Godfrey Philips Co., namely, Godfrey Philips India Ltd., to forthwith issue duplicate share certificates for 8,350 equity shares held by the applicant-company.2. Shri Doctor, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant-company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and its objects, inter alia, are to invest in any movable or immovable property including shares.3. The respondent also is a public limited company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Its objects are set out in the affidavit in support.4. It is the case of the applicant that it held 33,400 equity shares of the respondent. According to Shri Doctor, the title to the shares has never been disputed. However, in or around February, 2002, on checking the records, the applicant-company found that the physical balance of the shares with the applicant ...
State Bank of India Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: (2007)106ITD589(Mum.)
1. These 12 appeals which arise from the respective orders of the learned CIT(A) in connection with the proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), involving common facts, are disposed of by this common order.2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee bank is a fully owned public sector undertaking of Government of India, with large number of employees. In its capacity as an employer, the assessee bank is obliged to deduct tax at source under Section 192 of the Act in respect of salaries and other amenities or perquisites granted to the employees. The dispute relevant for the present appeals pertains to the alleged default of non-deduction of tax on the value of the perquisites granted to the employees during the financial years 1995-96 to 2000-01 (referred to by the Assessing Officer as assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02). During the above mentioned financial years, the assessee bank provided furniture to different categories of employees. The items of furniture included ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »