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.
Forum Against Commercialisation of Education and ors. Vs. State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR536
Lodha R.M., J.1. By means of this Writ Petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have raised the issue of admission to the Post Graduate Degree Course in Pharmacy (M. Pharm.) in the private colleges. According to the petitioners, the private colleges admit the students to M. Pharm. courses, not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of the amount which an individual student is ready to pay to the Management by way of donation/exorbitant fee. The petitioners have prayed that admission to M. Pharm. in the private colleges be ordered to be given as per the Rules framed by the Government of Maharashtra for Government colleges.2. In response to the Writ Petition, Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State has filed the reply affidavit. He has stated that there are thirty-two colleges in the State of Maharashtra conducting M. Pharm. course. These colleges can be divided into four categories viz. 1) Government colleges; 2) Government aided colleges; 3) Uni...
Rahul S. Thakur Vs. Commissioner of Police and 3 ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR544
Lodha R.M., J.1. The Director General of Police has submitted the report as was directed in the orders dated 19th October, 2005 and dated 28th June, 2006.2. In paragraph 1 of the report the Director General has noticed the prayers made in this Public Interest Litigation by observing thus:The petitioner Seri Rahul S. Thakur, r/o Vashi, Navi Mumbai has filed the aforesaid P.I.L. before the Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai with the following main prayers, viz.(a) That respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (i.e. Commr. of Police, Navi Mumbai and Director General of Police, M.S., Mumbai) be directed to immediately stop the practice of stripping accused persons and confining them to custody without any cloth and keeping them in such inhuman and undignified conditions;(b) Immediately provide funds for undertaking repairs, renovation of P. Stns. through out the State to provide essential facilities Le. electricity, fans, lights, toilets and lavatories, drinking water, bedding essential furniture for upkeep of hum...
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Registrar, Central Administrative ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR126
Rebello F.I., J.1. The Union Public Service Commission has approached this Court against the order dated 5th March, 2003 passed in Original Application No. 890 of 2002 by the Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Respondent pursuant to a public advertisement has invited applications for filling in six posts of Additional Legal Advisers in the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. In the advertisement issued, the qualifications both educational and experience were set out. The respondents had also issued instructions in the matter of shortlisting. The criteria disclosed was as under:(a) On the basis of their qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement;(b) On the basis of experience in the relevant field, or(c) By counting experience before or after the acquisition of essential qualifications, or(d) By holding screening test.It appears that there were large number of candidates and pursuant to w...
Ramdas Bhatu Chaudhary Since Deceased Through Lrs. Vs. Anant Chunilal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR313; 2006(6)MhLj571
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length.2. Legal heirs of original defendant are the appellants herein and respondent is the original plaintiff. The parties are referred as to their original status in the suit.3. The plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 209 of 1999 ('RCS') on 29-7-1999 for possession and injunction. The suit property comprises a piece of land admeasuring 6000 sq.ft. out of S. No. 55/2-B situated at village Deopur, District Dhule ('suit property')- It is pleaded by the plaintiff that he had purchased the land, jointly with four other persons, on 21-7-1986, out of S. No. 55/2-B totally admeasuring 1 Hectare and 55 Ares, from one Bhanu. The plaintiff and other co-owners subsequently partitioned the suit property, after its development. The suit property reserved for school building and play ground is also part and parcel of said S. No. 55/2-B. After partition between the plaintiff and other co-sharers, the suit property was all...
Reliance Energy Ltd. and anr. Vs. Chief Engineer (Electrical), Pwd Dep ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR638; 2007(3)BomCR935; 2006(6)MhLj479
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The first petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1930 which carries on business inter alia of generation and distribution of electricity. Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the company. Respondent No. 1 is the appellate authority appointed under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The respondent No. 2 is an original consumer of the first petitioner having a two storied bungalow. The petitioner by the present petition challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 18-3-2005 which hereinafter shall be referred to as the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. By the impugned order the first respondent directed that the assessment charged for the unauthorised use of the electricity by respondent No. 2 shall be limited for a period of three months immediately preceding the date of detection of the illegality. That order...
Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. S.C. Gupta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(207)ELT377(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Jetly in support of this Application and Mr. Sahu for Respondent No. 8. Ms. Saria appears for Respondent No. 14.2. This is an application by the Commissioner of Customs (Import) for a reference to the High Court for determination of certain questions of law arising out of the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal from its order dated 9th June 2000.3. There are seven companies of Rastogi Group of Delhi. Consequent upon certain information received by the Revenue, investigation was carried out by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. It was revealed that the group of seven companies was being controlled by four brothers and that the companies had effected duty free imports of various raw-materials which were cleared by them in the local market though they were supposed to export the final products. The exports were shown to have been effected to certain parties in Nepal which were found to be fake transactions. Therefore, noti...
The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sunder Taparia, Akai Impex Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC706
D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and learned A.P.P. for the State.2. All these writ petitions are directed against cryptic order passed by the Sessions Court on 19.1.2006 by which all the complaints filed by the petitioner-Bank have been dismissed. The order passed by the Sessions Court reads thus:Ms. Joshi APP for State present. Ms. Pradhan Advocate for applicant and Ms. Sagar Advocate for the Respondent are present.Heard.In view of SMS Pharmaceuticals the case cannot be maintained against the present applicant. Complaints against them dismissed.3. The Courts are not expected to pass such cryptic orders. The learned Judge, in the present case, ought to have record short reasons demonstrating as to how the case in hand was covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. : 2005CriLJ4140 . The learned Judge even did not feel it necessary to mention full title of the judgment of the Ape...
Shri Naresh Lokumal Serai Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: (2006)(203)ELT580Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 19.8.2003 the appellant holding Indian Passport filed baggage declaration Form (BDF) No. 172 at the Unaccompanied Baggage Centre, CFS, CWC, Sheva, Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House along with a detailed packing list showing that his baggage consisted of 237 individual packages contained in 11 containers. He had earlier arrived from Dubai on 17.8.2003 after a stay abroad of more than two years and had filed claim for transfer of residence facility on the goods imported by him. The baggage of the appellant had been booked on 3.7.2003 in 11 containers (40 feet containers) and the same had been shipped from Miami vide Bill of Lading No. SJ-1205570. The BDF filed by the appellant had been filed under "self indicating that he did not avail of the services of any CHA for clearance of his baggage. However, the appellant submitted an authorization for Shri Dinesh Yadav to assist him in the clearance of his baggage. The name of the consignor was s...
B.G. Shirke Constructions Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC641
1. The appellants are engaged in the business of Civil Engineering and Construction. They undertake contracts for construction of mass housing and industrial projects and commercial complexes. In 1997, the appellants were awarded a contract for construction of New Tower Block by M/s Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. consisting of 8 storied shopping complex and 150 hotel rooms. For construction of the structures, they require concrete mix, which they prepared at the site located a kilometer away from the plot of construction. The entire quantity of concrete mix generated, at the Batching Plant installed there, was used for the said construction.2. The appellants were issued a Show Cause Notice dated 3.1.1997 seeking to levy excise duty on concrete mix prepared for MHADA Housing Complex Project undertaken by them at Powai, Mumbai which was adjudicated by the Commissioner in his order dated 30.7.1998, which is pending before this Tribunal on appeal E/3687/98.3. By a Show Cause Notice dated 1.9.19...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Balsara Herbal Products Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC111
1. Is "Babool Powder" manufactured by M/s. Balsara Herbal Products Pvt.Ltd. a toothpowder/preparation for oral or dental hygiene classifiable under CET sub-heading 3306.00 attracting duty at the rate of 30% ad valorem as per tariff rate and 10% effective rate as per notification 10/94, as contended by the Revenue, or an ayurvedic medicament under CET subheading 3003.30 eligible to exemption from payment of duty in terms of notification 75/94? This is the issue to be determined in the above appeals.2. In appeal No. E/542/01, the proceedings commenced by issue of show cause notice dated 19.2.1998 proposing classification of Babool tooth powder under CET sub-heading 3306.00 and not under CET sub-heading 3003.30 as claimed by the manufacturers in their classification lists for the period 1993-94 and 1994-95, and proposing consequent recovery of duty of Rs. 5,62,033/- and proposing penal action, which notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 5.2.1999, by c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »