Mumbai Court August 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.
Nahoor AmIn Chinpade Vs. Rakirmohammad P. Shaikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR241; 2007(5)BomCR515; 2007(6)MhLj751
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties. This Second Appeal deserves to be admitted as it raises substantial questions of law to which I shall refer to a little latter. Hence, Admit. Heard forthwith for final disposal by consent.2. The appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, at Satara dated 21st December 2006 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2004. The said appeal emanated from a suit filed by the respondent initially for relief of injunction, and subsequently by way of amendment further relief of declaration of mandatory injunction was sought by the respondent against the appellant-defendant.3. The said Regular Civil Suit No. 125 of 1996 came to be decreed by the Trial Court by judgment and order dated 11th November 2003. Against the said decision the appellant-defendant carried the matter in appeal. By the impugned judgment and decree the District Judge has dismissed the appeal. In my opinion, it is apposite to reprodu...
Chandrakant Butalal Shah Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: 2009[15]STR373
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Heard forthwith.2. The Petitioner has approached this Court to challenge the order dated 22-3-2007 passed by the appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange. By that order the Petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of pre-deposit order dated 30-3-2005. The learned Tribunal by its order dated 30-3-2005 had directed the Petitioners to make pre-deposit of 20% of the amount of penalty i.e. Rs. 10 lacs.2. The Petitioner by application dated 27-4-2005 had applied for modification of that order. That was dismissed by order dated 31-3-2005. That was challenged by filing Writ Petition being W.P. No. 2033 of 2005. The Petition was disposed of by order dated 11-8-2005. It is the Petitioner's case that the said order did not correctly reflect what had transpired on that date. The Petitioner sought clarification wherein the Division Bench was pleased to pass an order being Order dated 24-3-2007. According to Petitioner by that order he was allowed to withdr...
Chandulal Balaprasad Parandekar and ors. Vs. Abdul Karim Saheblal Sayy ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR219; 2007(5)BomCR40
Marlapalle B.H., J.1. While admitting the second appeal by the order dated 8-4-1988, the following two substantial questions of law have been framed:(a) Whether, in a suit for specific performance of agreement, in order to establish the readiness and willingness, the plaintiff has to give notice to the defendant before the last date, specified in the agreement or after the last date specified in the agreement but within reasonable time thereafter?(b) What is the true nature of suit transaction, viz. Whether it is an agreement of sale or whether it is security agreement?2. The undisputed facts leading to the second appeal are that, the appellants-plaintiffs had filed Special Civil Suit No. 83 of 1968 for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the agricultural land in Survey No. 64 admeasuring about 50 acres and 39 gunthas situate at village Gulvanchi, Taluka - North Solapur. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the owners of the land who had agreed to sell the land to the plaintiffs for...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Greaves Cotton Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR241; (2007)109BOMLR1640; 2007(121)ECC357; 2007LC357(Bombay); 2008(225)ELT198(Bom)
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. The Department has approached this Court for the purpose of challenging judgement and order dated 13-11-2006 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai ('CESTAT', for short) in Appeal No. E/647/2006.2. It is the case of the Department that during the course of Audit of Records of the respondent by Internal Audit Officers of Central Excise, it was observed that in the Cost Audit Report for the year 2002-2003, for the physical verification of inventory, there was shortage of raw material worth Rs. 33,42,161/-. The amount involved CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit of Rs. 5,34,746/-, which was claimed by the assessee, although raw materials were not used in or in relation to manufacture of the final product. Thus, CENVAT Credit worth Rs. 5,34,746/ was claimed without justification or rather without being entitled to do so.Show-cause notice dated 15-12-2004 was issued directing the assessee to show cause as to why de...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through It's Divisional Manager and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ213; 2008(1)ALLMR78; 2007(5)BomCR520; (2007)109BOMLR1786; 2008(1)MhLj73
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this common Judgment, these appeals are being disposed of together. For, a short common question involved in all these appeals is as to whether the insurer can be directed to pay compensation amount determined by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, though not liable to pay due to breach of the policy condition, and thereafter to recover the same from owner of the offending vehicle. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that a Matador bearing Registration No. MH-18-C-7189 and truck bearing Registration No. DL-1-GB-0314 were involved in the vehicular accident. The accident occurred due to collision of the two vehicles on Bombay-Agra road on 3.1.2000. There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicular accident was so ghastly that 10 persons died and 4 were injured as a result thereof. All of them were travelling in the matador vehicle at the relevant time. The matador vehicle was insured with the appellant. The deceased persons and injured claimants were trave...
Dhruba Kumar Changkakoti Vs. Travel Corporation of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR215]; (2008)ILLJ94Bom
1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ petition No. 601 of 1998 dated March 16, 2000. By that order the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant had filed the writ petition challenging the order dated April 24, 1995 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 261 of 1991 by the Labour Court and the judgment and order dated July 28, 1997 passed in the Revision (ULP) No. 68/1995 by the Industrial Court. The appellant had filed a complaint before the Labour Court making grievance under the Unfair Labour Practices Act about termination of his services. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaint was raised by the Respondents contending that the appellant is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Evidence, was led by both the sides. After appreciating the evidence on record, both the documentary and oral, the Labour Court held that the a...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Aruna and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2356; 2007(6)ALLMR626
M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties.2. The insurance company, original respondent No. 2 in Motor Accident Claim Petition (M.A.C.P.) No. 428 of 1997 has preferred the present appeal challenging the award dated 21.6.2002, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad, granting compensation of an amount of Rs. 32,65,000 to the claimants with future interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the mother and sister of the deceased Swapnil alias Pappu Kalamkar filed M.A.C.P. No. 428 of 1997 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation of an amount of Rs. 90,00,000 on account of death of deceased Swapnil occurred in an accident that took place on 22.5.1996 on Jalna-Aurangabad Road. Deceased Swapnil was travelling in a car bearing No. MP 09-N 4519. Respondent No. 1 in the petition was driving the said car. The car was owned by respondent No. 3. It was insured with...
Jaipur Golden Transport Co. Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC431
1. The issue referred to this bench is whether the goods which are cleared by 100% EOU clandestinely and without any permission are eligible to full exemption under Notification No. 125/84-CE and whether such goods are to be assessed under the provision of main Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act or under the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act as it has been brought to our notice that there are conflicting decision on the same in the case of Modern Denim Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad reported in 2005 (191) E.L.T.1174 (Tri.-Mumbai) and in the case of Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. v. C.C. & C.E., Aurangabad 2. The learned advocate for the appellants took us through the provision of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act which reads as under: SECTION 3. Duties specified in the first schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to be levied. - (1) There shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed.- (a...
Shri Manhar V. Parekh and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC55
1. These appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Original No.129/97 dated 01.01.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II.2. The first appellant M/s. National Plastic Enterprises (M/s. NPE in short), Bombay, manufacture Plastic Films, an excisable commodity. On receipt of intelligence, surveillance was kept on the factory premises of M/s. NPE by the departmental officers. A truck carrying 52 rolls of Plastic Films valued at Rs. 1,74,091.60 was intercepted on 04.02.1993.The consignment was accompanied with four proforma invoices dated 01.02.1993 and Xerox copies of GP-1s (Gate Passes) of another firm M/s.Classic Plastics, Daman. In the follow up action, another consignment of 23 rolls was seized at the premise's of the Transporter. These goods also were received from M/s. NPE under Xerox copies of Gate Passes of M/s. Classic Plastics, Daman. Investigations revealed that even though the goods were transported under cover of the Gate Passes of M/s.Classic Plastics...
Atlas Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC334
1. For reasons recorded below, we waive pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 11,86,906/- plus Rs. 5,45,862/- confirmed against the applicants herein, and proceeded to take up the appeal itself for final disposal.2. The case of the department, based upon the report of Textile Committee was that the polyester fabrics imported by the appellants herein (along with others) were made of non texturised polyester yarn and hence assessed under Customs Tariff heading 54075290 attracting basic customs duty @ 25% in terms of Sr.No. 51 of Notification No.36/2003-Cus and CVD as applicable. The differential duty so assessed was paid by the importer, and the goods were cleared. Subsequently an intelligence was gathered that the polyester fabrics were being imported by misdeclaring technical characteristics thereof, and that the fabrics imported were classifiable as texturised polyester yarn under the Customs Tariff heading 540752 or 54073900. The remnant samples were drawn and tested by the Textile Committee i...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »