Mumbai Court April 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.
Narayan Wamanrao Charade and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR912; 2007(5)BomCR801; 2007(4)MhLj91
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Considering the nature of controversy the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission itself. Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent of parties. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.L. Khapre for Appellants, learned A.G.P. Mr. S.S. Doifode for Respondents 1 and 7, learned Advocate Mr. Mokadam for respondents No. 2 and 6 and learned Advocate Mohgaonkar for respondent No. 3. Nobody has appeared for respondent No. 4, though served. 3. Challenge in the Letters Patent Appeal is to order dated 21st August, 2006 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing Writ Petition No. 2428 of 2005 in motion hearing. The grievance made by the petitioners, who are appellants before us, in writ petition was that they were sought to be evicted in breach of principles of natural justice without giving them opportunity of hearing or to show cause and also in contravention of provisions of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The learned Single Judge has relied upon ...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Govinda S/O Ganpat Motghare,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR887; 2007CriLJ2564
K.J. Rohee, J. 1. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as ''the accused'') of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 90/1989 decided on 30.1.1991. 2. Accused No. 1 Govinda s/o Ganpat Motghare and accused No. 2 Bhaurao s/o Ganpat Motghare are real brothers. They are resident of village Belgaon. Sahdeo s/o Kamaji Wat (PW 1), Deodas s/o Kamaji Wat (PW 5) and Shivdas s/o Kamaji Wat (deceased) were real brothers. Shantabai (PW 2) is the widow of Shivdas Wat. Kailash (PW 4), Vilas (PW 3) and Bharat are the sons of Shivdas and Shantabai. All of them are resident of village Belgaon. Accused No. 1 Govinda and accused No. 2 Bhaurao as well as Deodas (PW 5) and Shivdas (deceased) were cultivators and they also used to distill illicit liquor. There was business rivalry between them. 3. Sahadeo, Deodas and Shivdas were resi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Balram Giddumal,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Bom)410; [2007]292ITR287(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. All these applications, filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were admitted on the questions of law raised in the respective income-tax applications.2. The assessment years involved in all these applications are the assessment year 1983-84 to the assessment year 1986-87.3. The basic question raised in all these applications is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?4. The respondents-assessees are commission agents deriving income from commission on sale of oranges/mosambis. The assessments for the respective assessment years were completed by accepting the commission income disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessees.5. There was a search action at the business premises of the assessees on July 23, 1987. During the course of search operation, no incriminating documents were found. However, the Assessing Officer collected information regardi...
Mutta International Vs. Laxmi Polytex Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR716; 2007(4)MhLj801
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged an Award dated 28th June, 2006 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Bharat Merchant Chambers Byelaws (for short, 'Byelaws').2. This Court has admitted the matter on 24-1-2007. The matter was called out for hearing and it was adjourned on three occasions for settlement. As the settlement was not possible it was again listed for hearing on 5-4-2007. The matter was adjourned for orders with liberty to the parties to settle the matter if possible. On 9-4-2007 none appeared for the petitioner. The respondent's counsel informed that there is no possibility of settlement in the matter. The matter was heard. As none appeared for the petitioner, it was adjourned for 13-4-2007 for orders. The matter was called out twice, none appeared for the petitioner again. Therefore this order.3. The respondent in view of the dispute arose referred the case with Annexures for a claim of Rs. 77,316/- with interest and costs and appointed Shri...
Mutta International Vs. Nandnandan Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR495(Bom); 2008(3)BomCR836; 2007(4)MhLj503
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged an Award dated 28th June, 2006 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Bharat Merchant Chambers Bye-laws (for short, 'Bye-laws').2. This Court has admitted the matter on 24-1-2007. The matter was called out for hearing and it was adjourned on three occasions for settlement. As the settlement was not possible it was again listed for hearing on 5-4-2007. The matter was adjourned for orders with liberty to the parties to settle the matter if possible. On 9-4-2007 none appeared for the petitioner. The respondent's counsel informed that there is no possibility of settlement in the matter. The matter was heard. As none appeared for the petitioner, it was adjourned for 13-4-2007 for orders. The matter was called out twice, none appeared for the petitioner again. Therefore this order.3. The respondent in view of the dispute arose referred the case with Annexures for a claim of Rs. 80,073/- with interest and costs and appointed Sh...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gajanan Champalal Bajaj (Huf)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: [2008]304ITR163(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard Mr. Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. K. P. Devani, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. These two reference applications under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal dated 02/11/1993 in R. A. Nos. 392 and 393/Nag/93 declining to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition if Rs, 15,000/-and Rs. 20,000/-made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment years 85-86 & 86-87 respectively as interest income(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting an addition of Rs. 69,000/-made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in silver for the assessment year 86-873. The assessment years involved herein are 1985-86 and 1986-87. On 28/10/1985 the premises of the assessee wa...
Citizen Impex and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC384
1. These are six appeals involving same set of facts and arising out of two order-in-originals in which four of the appellants are also common.Since the issue involved is same, they are being decided through a common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that two units i.e. Citizen Impex and Neptune Impex after purchasing fabrics from one M/s Shreeji Enterprise filed shipping bills for export under DEPB Scheme where the PMV was declared as Rs. 45/- per yard in both cases but the FOB was declared as Rs. 73.41 per yard in the case of Citizen Impex and Rs. 73.59 per yard in the case of Neptune Impex. In the case of Citizen Impex, the total FOB value declared was Rs. 73,41,160/- and the DEPB claimed amounted to Rs. 7,34,11.6/- while in the case of Neptune Impex, the total FOB value was Rs. 1,44,52,630/- and the DEPB claimed amounted to Rs. 14,45,263/-. In both the case the shipping bills were accompanied by ARE-1 forms to show that the export goods were purchased from M/s Shreeji Enter...
Shiv-vani Oil and Gas Exploration Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC306
1. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of oil and exploration services and were awarded contract on behalf of ONGC for drilling, completion and testing of pilot oil wells in coal bed methane blocks of Jharia, Bokaro and North Kanpur. For the purpose of undertaking the drilling operations, the appellants had placed a purchase order with M/s. Regent Asia FSE, Dubai, for import of two numbers of Caterpilla-engines, model CAT 3408 and imported the same into India.These engines were second hand engines. The appellants claimed the same to be capital goods entitled for exemption under Sr. No. 218 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. However, the Commissioner held that engines cannot be treated as capital goods and therefore cannot be imported into India without a valid licence. He accordingly confiscated the engines and allowed the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakhs and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellants under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962.2. The l...
Now Courier and Cargo Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)14STT116
1. Heard both sides. Service tax, interest and penalty as assessed by the Assistant Commissioner (Service Tax) levied in the year 2004 has been paid. There after there was review of the order by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik who in turn enhanced the penalty against which the present appeal is filed along with stay application. In view of the deposit of the amount as assessed originally further pre deposit is waived in respect of the enhanced penalty amount and stay is granted pending disposal of the appeal. List the appeal in its turn....
Nuclear Power Corporation of Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC380
1. The appellant, in this case, is Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, a Central Government Undertaking. They have imported diesel engines set along with lifting tools under high sea sales agreement entered into with M/s. L & T Ltd., Mumbai and applied for registration of the aforesaid high sea sales agreement as contract under Project Import Regulations, 1986. They claimed assessment under Chapter heading 98.01 relating to project import and claimed benefit of exemption under Sr. No. 401 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus which provides for nil rate of duty in respect of goods required for setting up of a Nuclear Power Project specified in List No. 43 having capacity of 440 MW and more as certified by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Atomic Energy. The imports were subjected to condition No. 87 which further provides that "(a) in case of imports by the constituent units of the Department of Atomic Energy, the qu...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »