Mumbai Court July 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.
Swami Kalavati W/O Sidhilingappa Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR789; 2008(1)MhLj104
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.Respondent No. 1 is impleaded through the Divisional Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred as the Scrutiny Committee). Respondent No. 2 is the Collector, Nanded.2. The petitioner has impugned an order dated 5th June, 2007, passed by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad. The petitioner has also sought a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to validate the caste certificate issued in her favour stating her as belonging to the Jangam caste. The petitioner claims to belong to the Jangam caste which was recognised as a Other Backward Class by a Government Resolution of the State of Maharashtra dated 13-10-1967.It is admitted that the petitioner's father was a resident of Andhra Pradesh prior to 13-10-1967; that the petitioner was born and completed her primary education, in Andhra Pradesh and that the petitioner got married and settled in Maharashtra after 1...
Gowardhan Das Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Police Station Offi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2121
ORDERC.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of parties.2. These two criminal applications are filed against the two orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, on an application for return of the documents filed in Criminal Case instituted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Applicant Gowardhan Das is an accused while Nandkumar is a complainant. It is alleged that applicant Gowardhan Das had issued two cheques bearing No. 682765 and 682766. Both the cheques were for sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Those cheques were issued by the present applicant. They were sent for collection to the bank. Those cheques were dishonoured. Non applicant No. 2 Nandlal therefore, filed two separate criminal cases being Criminal Case No. 4034/05 and 4035/05. When these applications were filed by Nandlal he had tendered those two cheques along with the memos of return issued by the bank. During the course of the trial i.e. after recording of the evidence of the witnes...
Sunrise Zinc Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC61
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original No. 64/Commr Goa/CX/2005 dated 13/02/2006.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.3. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they are not challenging the Central Excise duty demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority and the interest liability thereon. They are only challenging the imposition of penalty on them. It is the submission of the Ld. Advocate that they had paid the entire amount of Central Excise duty and much more before the issuance of the show cause notice. It also his submission that the demand of duty is on the spent DEHPA, which has arisen while using pure DEHPA in execution of a project. Ld. SDR, would contend that the penalty is imposable on this violation of the law by the appellant.4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the appellant had cleared spent DEHPA under commercial invoice which was intercepted by the authorities and on a reasonable b...
Status Car Rentals Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: (2008)9STR83
1. Heard both sides. The assessee is in appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nasik for enhancing the penalty amount to Rs. 1,04,658/- from Rs. 4.000/- as imposed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 76 of the Finance Act. The assessee is engaged in rendering tour operator services and got registered under the provisions of Finance Act 1994. It is alleged that the assessee has failed to pay the service tax and to file return for the period from October 2000 to December 2001 on or before the stipulated period. A show cause notice was issued, on 7.1.2002 for contravention of the provisions under Section 68 and Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 and proposing penalty under Section 76 and Section 77 ibid. The Assistant Commissioner (Service Tax), Central Excise & Customs, Nasik-IV accordingly adjudicated the mater and imposed penalty of Rs. 4000/- under Section 76 and Rs. 300/- under, Section 77. It is relevant here to mention that ...
Dnyaneshwar Sudama Bhagat Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Sta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1397
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an appeal by accused who was convicted under Section 366-A and 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Criminal Appeal No. 81/06. 2 suffer imprisonment of five years on both counts. 2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution are as under Prosecutrix Ashwani Solanke at the relevant time was living with her father Haribhau. On 31/7/2004 Haribhau had gone out for work while his wife had gone out to bring her son from the school. She found her daughter missing who was alone at home. She thought that she must have gone somewhere and come back home. Since she did not come back, a report was lodged by Haribhau on 1/8/2004. Again on 5/8/2004 he lodged a report informing the police that he has found a chit written by his daughter in the name of one Vishal and from that he gathered that it was accused Dhyneshwar who had kidnapped her. On this report, the police registered the offence. In the meanwhile, appellant/accused and Ashwini came back to Akola and both ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR88(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The appeal by the Revenue is in respect of the assessment year 1981-82. The question of law as formulated in para 5 really pertains to weighted deduction.2. With the above a few facts may now be set out. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim of deduction under Section 35B. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted in principle that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 35B. The Assessing Officer thereafter made certain orders for giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Two appeals were preferred by the assessee in connection with the orders passed by the Assessing Officer to give effect to the earlier order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).3. In the appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal the relevant facts have been narrated in paragraph 7. After considering the various contentions of the parties before it the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 11 in so far as exp...
Ratilal Manjibhai Patel Vs. Crown Industries and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ641
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni the learned Counsel for the petitioner who is the accused in SCC No. 1729 of 2003 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He had filed an application at Exh. 14 in the said case for recall of the process and on the ground that the complaint was not filed within the stipulated period of limitation from the date of receipt of the first notice. By an order dated 19-7-2005 the said application was rejected and, therefore, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No. 135 of 2005 which also came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge at Sangli on 5-12-2005. Hence this petition.2. Mr. Kulkarni relied upon the decision in the case of Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yashpal Singh and Anr. : (2005)4SCC417 in which their Lordships stated that the period of one month for filing the complaint will be reckoned from the day immediately following the day on which the period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the n...
Radhika Alias Shashikala Rameshwarrao Upasane Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ681
ORDERA.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard Mr. Dhumale, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Mirza, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent.2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the applicant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 8-11-2005 passed by 1st ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Criminal Revision Application No. 98/2005 dismissing the revision application against order dated 26-4-2005 in Criminal Case No. 213/2003 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana.3. The facts leading to filing of the present application are as under:The applicant who has been practicing in the field of Acupuncture arranged camps during the period 5-3-2003 to 15-3-2003 at Buldhana and large number of patients attended the said camp. The applicant charged Rs. 20/- per person. According to the prosecution, the act of practicing in Acupuncture is covered by Section 2(2) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 (...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›