Mumbai Court October 2007 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.
Vidyut Metalics Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kusum Yellapurkar and Shri A.U. Purandar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR488; [2007(115)FLR924]; (2008)ILLJ717Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition has been filed to challenge the order of the Industrial Court which has interfered with the order of the Labour Court under Section 44 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The Labour Court, in the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 has declared that the petitioner had resorted to unfair labour practices by awarding a disproportionate punishment for the misconduct alleged against the 1st respondent. The Labour Court has set aside the punishment of dismissal and substituted it by an order of 'removal from service' and compensation of Rs. 63,000/- as 'rehabilitation compensation'. The petitioner Company was also directed to pay the other legal dues to the 1st respondent. The Industrial Court has set aside the order of the Labour Court and has granted reinstatement with 50% of the back wages. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:The 1st respondent was employed as a Packer from 1966 with the petitioner. In 1985, the petitioner all...
Babaji Alias Baban Keru Phapale Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj101
R.M. Borde, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage with the consent of the parties.2. The petitioner in this petition is assailing the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 15, Ahmednagar dt. 31-12-2004 whereby an application tendered by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of the amount of compensation awarded came to be rejected. It is the contention of the petitioner that his land came to be acquired by the State for construction of minor irrigation tank. A notification was published under Section 4 of the Act on 21-6-1975 which was subsequently published in Government Gazette on 24-7-1975. After following the procedure as prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, the award was declared on 16-9-1978. One of the land owners whose land came to be acquired by same Section 4 notification which was published on 21-6-1975 and were covered by the award which was publ...
Garware Marine Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2007
Reported in: (2008)(124)ECC197
1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Nylon Fishing Nets falling under Chapter Heading 56 to the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were procuring nylon multi- filament yarn of 210 deniers for the manufacture of such goods. The final product is made out of nylon twine which is obtained by twisting and turning the nylon filament yarn so procured. The demand in the present case is on nylon twine which was classified by the appellants under CET sub-heading 5607.90 and cleared under exemption from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 6/2002 CE dated 1.3.2002 as per sr.No. 142 of the table to the Notification. For the period subsequent to 9.7.2004, the appellants had cleared nylon twine availing exemption in terms of Notification 30/04 as per sr.No. 6 of the table to the Notification. According to the Revenue, the benefit of exemption under Notification 6/2002 was not available to the product in dispute for the reason that filament yarn of 210 ...
Shree Percoated Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2007
Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC328
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-appeal No.PIII/BBP/124/2006.2. Relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein had procured H.R. Coil and paints at NIL rate of duty under Notification No. 34/2001-CE(NT) dated 21.6.2001 for use in the manufacture of goods to be exported. The goods so procured were rejected and returned to the supplier (without payment of duty). The authorities came to the conclusion that since the procured goods were not used for intended purpose, the appellant is liable to pay duty amounting to Rs. 2,51,092/- and directed the appellant to do so. The appellant paid the duty 'under protest'. Subsequently, the appellant filed the refund claim of Rs. 2,51,092/- on the ground that the return of the rejected goods procured duty free cannot be termed as utilization for purpose other than intended. The said contention of the appellant was rejected against which the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed t...
Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Vs. Reliance Industries Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2007
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...
Natesha Securities Vs. Vinayak Waman Mokashi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1115; 2008(3)MhLj714
ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. This revision application was heard and dismissed for the reasons to be recorded. Accordingly reasons are being recorded.Introduction:2. This criminal revision application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th March, 2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Appeal No. 79/2001 confirming the judgment and order dated 21st May, 2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune in Criminal Case No. 439/1997, who was pleased to convict the applicant-accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I. Act' for short) for the reasons recorded therein.Factual Matrix:3. The factual matrix of the case, in brief. is that the applicant/accused one Mr. Shirish Suresh Welling is a proprietor of M/s. Natesha Securities. Respondent No. 1 - Vinayak Waman Mokashi is one of the nearest relatives of Mr. Shirish Welling dealing in s...
Goa Sponge and Power Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: (2008)10STR34
1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 18,76,459 (Cenvat Credit of Rs. 18,39,282 + Education Cess of Rs. 37,177/-) and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon the applicant herein. The demand arises as a result of disallowing Cenvat credit taken on the strength of TR 6 challan which was not modvatable document for availing Cenvat credit during the period in dispute i.e. upto 15-6-2005 and TR-6 challan became a modvatable document only with the issue of Notification 28/2005-C.E.(NTR) (sic) (28/2005-C.E. (N.T.), dated 7-6-2005).2. We find that in this case the Service Tax has not been paid by the goods transport operators, but the applicant who is the recipient, paid the Service tax and took credit and the Department's case is that the invoice issued by the transporter is not document evidencing payment of duty and hence is not covered by Clause (e) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.3. We find that a strong prima ...
Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel, Vs. Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR544; 2008(1)BomCR156
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By the above three Civil Applications, the Applicants are seeking recall of my order dated 13th June,2006, which was based on Consent-Terms duly signed by all the parties. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The original Appellant Budhiya Vesta Patel, now deceased had filed suit before the City Civil Court, Bombay being the Suit No. 5163 of 1999 wherein he was the original Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and the Defendant Nos. 7,8 & 9 and from 10 to 45 were subsequently impleaded as Defendants in the suit. The original Plaintiff the Appellant in the First appeal had also taken out Notice of Motion and which the same was dismissed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The Plaintiff herein thereafter filed Appeal from order No. 486 of 2001 and wherein Court Receiver was appointed and wherein the Appellant was appointed as the agent of the Court Receiver. By an order dated 19th April,2002, the Court Receiver was directed to depute a representative to th...
Sharad Gajanan Ambole and ors. Vs. Gauramma Kumarappa Medar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR111
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The present appeal is by obstructionists Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against an order dated 3-9-2007 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay (the Executing Court) in Chamber Summons No. 602 of 2007 in Civil Suit No. 6805/1994 as chamber summons taken out by the decree holder against the obstructionists to the execution of the decree in the Judgment has been allowed by further observing that the obstructionists are disentitled to any right and interest in the property.2. The plaintiff/decree holder filed the suit against the defendants for eviction and possession. The plaintiff is original tenant of the premises i.e. 10-A. The suit was against the Judgment debtors by holding them to be the trespassers. The First Appeal No. 630/1998 filed by the Judgment debtor was dismissed on 11-2-2005 and further the said dismissal was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 18-3-2005. While dismissing the SLP (Special Leave Petition) the original defendants/Judgment debtors were given time...
Pawan S/O Nandlal Agrawal Vs. Asian Dye Chemicals
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR393; 2008(3)BomCR778; 2008(1)MhLj290
Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the original defendant against the judgment passed by the District Judge, Akola, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2001, whereby the judgment passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, in Special Civil Suit No. 51/1997 was reversed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-Firm was decreed.2. This Court, by the order dated 5th March, 2003, admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the respondent firm stood dissolved on account of the death of one partner and whether it continued to be a registered firm within the meaning of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, since the change was not reported to the Registrar within the time prescribed by Sections 60 to 63 of the Partnership Act and consequently whether the suit to enforce a right by such firm would be maintainable?(2) Whether, in view of the contention of the respondent that the appellant is a tenant in respect of the part of the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »