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.
Baban @ Yeshwant Vithal Katalkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ145
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 394 of Cr.P.C. arises from the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai on 31/1/2002 in Sessions Case No. 1239 of 1993. The appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and is sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-in default of payment of fine, he is to undergo further S.I. for six months. The accused is entitled to be given set off in respect of his detention as an under-trial. It is stated by Mrs.Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellant that he was taken in custody immediately after the order of conviction and sentence was pronounced and came to be released on bail on 6/1/2007.2. As per the prosecution case the prosecutrix was staying with her parents in the neighbourhood of the accused and on 12/7/1993 she was watching T.V. in the house of the neighbour i.e. Mr. Nair. The accused opened the door ...
Raghbir Furnishers, Shri Vs. Ccex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC337
1. We have heard both sides on the application for modification of stay order No. S/415-417/WZB/05/C-III/EB dated 13.9.2005 by which pre-deposit of Rs. 21 lakhs out of the total duty demand of Rs. 31,59,987/- was directed. The applicants contend that even though they manufactured immovable items such as partitions, paneling, wardrobes etc. and movable items such as tables, draw boxes, beds, mirrors etc.and even though the authorities below have accepted that partitions are not liable to duty, the duty demand on partitions is not justified. The next contention is that the applicant is not a manufacturer, the reason that furniture was brought into existence at site by subcontractors.They draw our attention to the Bench decision on identical issue in the case of Jayant K. Furnishers v. CCE, Mumbai-I 2002 (150) ELT 110, in which the Tribunal has set aside the order and remanded the case for fresh decision. Lastly, they submit that the demand is barred by limitation for the reason that the...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rocket Engg. Corporation Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC356
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.PII/BKS/215/2006 dt. 20.7.2006 this appeal is listed today for maintainability by the appeal before the Tribunal.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. Heard the Ld. SDR and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the sanctioning of rebate claim to the respondent by the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals). The proviso to Section 35 B(1) clearly mandates that any appeal in respect of rebate claim has to be filed by the Revenue before the Jt. Secretary to the Government of India under the provisions of Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act.3. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected as non-maintainable, with liberty to approach the appropriate authority....
Rama Steel Industries and anr. Vs. Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC122
1. Since both these appeals raise common question of law they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. A short question that arises in these appeals is whether the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SRFAESI Act") would be applicable to the Co-operative Banks which are registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.3. The respondent bank which is a Co-operative Bank had initiated an action against the appellants under the provisions of Section 101 of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and got the recovery certificate issued thereunder. Thereafter the respondent bank took an action under the provisions of the SRFAESI Act against the appellants which was challenged by the appellants by filing an appeal/application under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act in the D.R.T.Nagpur. During the pendency of said appli...
Amirul @ Hamirul Haresh Shaikh Vs. the Commissioner of Police,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1656; 2007(5)MhLj683
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the detention order dated 21st July, 2006 passed under 'The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. Pursuant to the said detention order, the Petitioner was arrested on 25th July, 2006 and he is in custody.2. The Petitioner has been detained under the said Act on the ground that he is a Slumlord and that his activity is causing prejudice to the maintenance of public order. Section 2(a) of the said Act defines, 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' means(i) in the case of a slumlord, when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a slumlord, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order;Similarly Section 2(f) of the said Act defines;(f) 'slum...
State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Rajendra Narayanrao Gaikwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR521; 2008(1)BomCR839
Gaikwad M.G., J.1. These two appeals challenge the judgment and award dated 6.7.2006 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 62 of 2005, whereby the learned Reference Court (1st Adhoc Additional District Judge), Beed, partly allowed the reference of the claimant. (For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as 'the claimant' and 'the acquiring body').2. The claimant is owner of part of the land survey No. 149 of village Bobade Taraf, Beed, admeasuring 3 Hectare, 5 R. This land, along with other lands, was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of erection of 220 KV Sub Station at Beed. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Henceforth, 'the L.A. Act'), came to be published in the Government Gazette dated 2.12.1999, and in the village on 21.11.2000. Declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was made on 11.10.2001. After calling objections from interested persons, the Special Land Acquisition Officer ('SLAO' for short) passed award on 12.9.2003. Under t...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Krishna Filaments Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: 2009[16]STR369
ORDER1. The appellants had preferred this appeal against the order dated 6-9-2004 dismissing the appeal on the ground that the CCE (Aurangabad) had no authority to prefer appeal and CCE (Adjudication) was authorised to file the appeal. A corrigendum was issued on 1st September, 1999 whereby expression 'Commissioner (Adjudication) of C. Excise, Mumbai' was to read as 'Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad'. On the date when the order was passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal, the corrigendum was not brought to his notice and the same was produced while deciding miscellaneous application which has also been rejected.2. In our opinion, considering Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as it then stood, the issuance of corrigendum can have no effect as the power could only be conferred on the Regional Commissioner of Central Excise who was the adjudicating authority. In the instant case, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Aurangabad) was not adjudicating authority...
The State of Maharashtra, Vs. Yashwant Kahnu Shirsath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR204; (2007)109BOMLR1511
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The above two appeals were taken as lead cases out of the bunch of 159 First Appeals listed together for hearing. Various learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties advanced their arguments by referring to the evidence in these two cases. Thus, by this common judgment, we will dispose of all these appeals as they are based upon common evidence and on somewhat similar facts. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, exercising his powers on behalf of the Government, issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), intending to acquire the land for the project of Mukane Dam from different villages as they were adjacent to each other. This also included the land from village Kavanai, Taluka Igatpuri, District Nashik. The notification was issued on 25th May, 1994 acquiring nearly 460.92.81 hectors of land. After issuance of this notifica...
Hanusingh S/O Harsingh Chavan and Vs. Amnaji S/O Bhaurao Wadje and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR822; 2007(5)BomCR425; (2007)109BOMLR1472
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this Appeal is to Decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale.2. Appellants are original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. They are real brothers inter-se. Respondent No. 1 Amnaji is original Plaintiff and Respondent No. 2 Vijay is original Defendant No. 3. Appellant No. 1 Hanusingh is agriculturist in whose name land bearing Survey No. 42 of Mukhedkar was declared as a statutory tenant under provisions of Section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Deceased appellant No. 2 Rajasingh was a registered medical practitioner.3. Subject matter of the suit is three (3) acres land out of Survey No. 42, which admeasured 4 acres 20 gunthas, as described in the claim clause. Though the land Survey No. 42 was cultivable in the past and was being used for agricultural purposes, yet due to a proximity of a State Transport Bus Stand, it was converted to non agricultural use. Already remaining one (1) acre twenty (20) gunthas land is di...
Rajaram Waman Masurkar Vs. Lokmanya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR422; (2007)109BOMLR1488; 2008CriLJ2523
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Undisputedly contempt is a matter primarily between the court and the contemnor. Contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, can be initiated against the contemnor through any of the specified modes with and/or without consent of the specified authorities, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The contempt jurisdiction vested in the court by development of law as well as under statutory provisions, has very wide and pervasive magnitude and scope. It is now well settled that independently, apart from the Contempt of Courts Act, or other statutory laws relating to the contempt, the Supreme Court and High Courts in terms of Article 215 of the Constitution, have also inherent powers to punish for contempt. In the case of R.L. Kapur v. State of Madras : 1972CriLJ643 , the Supreme Court has pointed out that such inherent powers or jurisdiction was not derived from the statutory law relating to the contempt. The purpose of the contem...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »