Mumbai Court December 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.
Sarita Shyam Dake Vs. Sr. Police Inspector and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)MhLj385
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 as well as the respondent Nos. 2 and 4. None present for other respondents, though served.2. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings initiated consequent to the C.R. No. 2105 of 2004 registered at MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai under Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called as 'the Atrocities Act') read with 7(1)(c) and (d) of The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as 'the Civil Rights Act') on the ground that the complaint on the face of it nowhere discloses any offence either under the Atrocities Act or under the Civil Rights Act.3. The petitioner and the respondent No. 5 who is the original complainant are in employment of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner is the Peon and the respondent No. 5 is a Draughtsman. On 3rd August,...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tops Detective and Security
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: (2008)12STJ333CESTAT(Mum.)bai
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has reduced the penalty from Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs) to Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousands) imposed upon the respondents herein, who are providers of taxable services in the category of "Security Agency Services".2. I have heard the learned SDR and perused the record. None appeared for the respondents, inspite of notice.3. The Commissioner has held that balance revenue to the extent of Rs. 50,109/- only is involved in the present case and the appellant has paid all the dues on 28.8.2006. He has held that there was an arguable case on merit viz. the issue of determination of value of taxable services. These are the reasons given by him for reducing the penalty.The quantum of penalty to be imposed is a matter of discretion. No grounds have been made out in the present appeal for enhancement to the extent of penalty imposed by the original adjudicating authority.4. I therefore hold that there is no ground to interfer...
Total Security Systems Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: (2008)10STR624
1. I have heard both sides on the appeal against levy of interest and imposition of penalty upon the appellants herein who rendered service as security agency to Port Trust. The interest has been levied and penalty has been imposed on the ground that the service tax payable by the appellants was not paid within time.2. I find that neither show cause notice nor the order of the adjudicating authority and lower appellate authority have confirmed any amount as service tax payable by the appellants. The notice and the order of the lower appellate authority relate only to interest and penalty, without confirming any service tax demand against the appellants. Since this is not legally sustainable, for want of confirmation of service tax demand, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any due to the appellants in accordance with law....
Kisan Ginning and Pressing Factory Limited, Anjangaon Taluka Anjangaon ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR316; I(2008)BC578; 2008(1)BomCR245; 2008(2)MhLj723
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant, who has been directed by the appellate court to pay interest at 24% on the decretal amount, modifying the order of the trial court by directing to pay interest at 12%.2. The facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff/respondent. Company deals in sale of machinery and its parts. The defendant/appellant runs a Ginning and Pressing Factory and is a Co-operative Society. It is alleged that the appellant used to purchase the goods from the shop of the respondent on credit. The appellant agreed to pay interest on the amount due if the bill amount was not paid within period of three days. The defendant had purchased the goods worth Rs. 31950/- on 13/12/1991 and made repayment of Rs. 20,000/- against that bill on 7/12/1991 leaving a balance of Rs. 11,950/-. The respondent, therefore, claimed Rs. 11,950/- as principal and Rs. 7585/- as an interest with future interest at 24%.3. The appellant/defendant resisted the suit. The app...
Prabhawati Vijaykumar Khivsara Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR755; 2008(2)MhLj274
ORDERB.R. Gavai, J.1. Since, in both the petitions, a common question of law is involved, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6811/2007 was Sarpanch and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6895/2007 was Upsarpanch of Grampanchayat Jamthi, Tal. Bodwad, Dist. Jalgaon. A notice of no-confidence motion was moved against the said petitioners and subsequently a motion of no-confidence came to be passed in a Meeting held on 7th August, 2007, by a majority of six against one in a Grampanchayat, which is consisting of nine members.3. A dispute as provided under Section 35(3B) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 and further appeal as provided under Section 35(3C) of the said Act, before the Collector and Divisional Commissioner came to be rejected by the orders dated 29th September, 2007 and 2nd November, 2007. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petitions.4. Shri V.M. Chate, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›