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.
Kusum Dashrath Kharmare Vs. Popat Madhav Gangarde and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR576; 2008(1)BomCR397; 2008(1)MhLj267
ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing, with the consent of the parties.This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 30th August, 2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karjat, district Ahmednagar, in Regular Darkhast No. 20 of 2002.2. The brief resume of facts would suffice. The petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 22 of 1981 for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The suit came to be decreed by the trial Court, with costs. It was declared that the plaintiff was having 1/9th share in the suit property. Separate inquiry was directed under Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as the Code, for short). Preliminary decree, thus, was passed. Further direction was issued to send the precept to Collector for effecting partition. The decree seems to have been passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Di...
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Lark Chemicals
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: 2008[9]STR230
ORDER1.This is an appeal against the order dated 1-12-2005 wherein the Tribunal recorded a finding that Section 80 has overriding effect on Sections 76, 77, 78 and 79 of the Service Tax Act (sic) (Finance Act, 1994). The Commissioner (Appeals) considering Section 80 has reduced the penalty. There is no question of any legal infirmity in the order.2. The appeal is filed in terms of the questions of law as formulated in paragraph 4 of the appeal memo. We have already held in other matters that Section 76 is subject to Section 80 and there is discretion to reduce the penalty.Once that is the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The question as framed would not arise, therefore, appeal dismissed....
Manish Vijay Mhashelkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR246; 2008CriLJ670
ORDERV.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.2. The short question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the Magistrate after taking cognisance of a private complaint, after recording the verification of the complaint, can pass order passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. directing the police to investigate the matter and if such an order under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. cannot be passed, what is the course of action that is open to the said Magistrate.3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are as under:A complaint was filed by the respondent No. 2 herein before the Magistrate and on the same date, the Magistrate took cognisance of the complaint and verification of the complaint was recorded. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed an application stating therein that the matter may be referred to the police for investigation ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Quick Service
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: 2008[10]STR235
ORDER1. The question of law is framed at paragraph No. 4 in the appeal memo. The main issue is as to whether the Tribunal can impose penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. After considering the provisions of Sections 80 read with 76, we have held that there is discretion in the Tribunal to interfere with the penalty imposed. In the instant case, in our opinion, no question of law would arise. Hence appeal is dismissed....
Baliram Buddulalji Kamale Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR167; 2008(1)BomCR726
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged an order made by respondent No. 3 on 13.6.2007 issuing ad interim injunction on the application for grant of stay in pending Appeal No. 213 of 2007.3. FACTS:F.L. Licence as well C.L. Licence originally in the name of one Buddulal is the bone of contention between the rival parties to the present petition. The petitioner filed an application on 21.3.2006 before the Collector, Nagpur, against respondent No. 4 contending that his signatures were forged on various documents by respondent No. 4 and under that the said joint licence C.L. and F.L. III was transferred in the name of respondent No. 4 fraudulently. The Collector, Nagpur, held enquiry and finally made an order on 23.5.2007 directing the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for getting the issue about fraud etc. adjudicated and till then kept the said licence under suspension....
Jari Mari Coop. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., a Society Formed Under the M.S.C. Act, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ668
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 2. The appellant is challenging the order passed by the City Civil Court in Notice of Motion taken out by original defendants, seeking prosecution of the plaintiff and her constituted Power of Attorney under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the said order, City Civil Court was pleased to postpone the inquiry which is contemplated under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has observed that the said inquiry would be held at the time of trial by the Civil Court. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff through her constituted Power of Attorney i.e. her own son and that the said Power of Attorney was false & fabricated and on the basis of this false and fabricated Power of Attorney, interim orders were obtained by the plaintiff in the Trial Court...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kathod Hasu Patil Since Deceased Through His ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)MhLj711
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. In this appeal the State has challenged the impugned order dated 12th April, 1993 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Raigad-Alibag whereby the claimant's application has been partly allowed, and thereby the Court has granted enhanced compensation @ Rs. 15/- per sq.mtr., after considering the material placed on record in para 9 which is reproduced as under:As stated above I estimated the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 15/- per square metre. The total area of both the lands come to 4070 square metres. Therefore, 4070 sq. metres x Rs. 15/- per sq. metre : Rs. 61,050 : 00. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded total market value of the acquired land Rs. 24,308.40ps. The Claimant is therefore, entitled to enhance amount of Rs. 61,050.00 minus Rs. 24,308.40 ps. : Rs. 36,741.60 ps. towards market value. The Claimant is also entitled to additional amount on the same at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition A...
Rajhans Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2007
Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Mum.)779
1. These are the cross appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee which have been heard together and are being disposed off by the common order for the sake convenience. First we take up the appeal of the assessee. We take up the assessee's first ground whether the lower authorities were justified in assessing the sum of Rs. 2,25,37,301/- under Section 41(2) of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), which represented the insurance claim received by the assessee.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these. The assessee started a windmill project in the assessment year 1996-97 by installing windmills for the purpose of generating electricity. The total cost of such windmills amounted to Rs. 2.8 crore. The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on this asset for the assessment year 1996-97 itself. Thus, the written down value (WDV) of the plant was reduced to nil. However, the said windmills were destroyed in the cyclone in assessment year 1999-2000 against which the assessee received a su...
Jivatram Gangadas Mihani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR10; 2008(3)BomCR815; 2007(6)MhLj487
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner assailed order dated 1-4-2004 passed by the Collector, Buldana, confirmed by Commissioner of State Excise on 21-10- 2005 and also confirmed by respondent No. 1 Hon'ble Minister on 5-7-2006. Facts:2. The petitioner holds FL-II licence as sole proprietor of M/s. J. G. Mihani Wine Shop. There is one more licence, namely, CL-II licence, issued in the name of wife of petitioner with partnership firm, namely, M/s. Vishal Liquors. Vishal Liquors, in a raid that was conducted by the State Excise Department, was found to have evaded the duty payable i. e. Rs. 46,11,394.80 i. e. on a licence in the name of wife of petitioner, namely, Smt. Pushpadevi. A criminal case was registered against her as well as the petitioner because the petitioner was on 'Nokarnama' actually conducting the shop M/s. Vishal Liquors in the name of his wife. Since her licence was initially suspended and thereafter cancelled for the said evasion of duty, she...
Priyanka Mahesh Jangam Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR807; 2008(1)BomCR703; 2007(6)MhLj709
D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition the petitioner challenges the decision of respondent No. 2 - Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Kokan Vibhag, Mumbai (for short, 'the Scrutiny Committee') dated 8th December, 2006 invalidating the caste certificate of the petitioner as belonging to Beda-Jangam - a scheduled caste under the Presidential notification.2. The documents, copies of which are annexed to the petition disclose that in the school register, the caste of the paternal grandfather of the petitioner, namely Kashinath Mallikarjun Jangam, is shown as 'Lingayat'. He was born on 15th January, 1929 and left the school in the year 1949 studying upto 7th standard. This is the oldest document on record which shows the caste of the petitioner's grandfather to be 'Lingayat'. The school leaving certificate of the petitioner's father, namely Mahesh Kashinath Jangam, also records his caste to be Hindu-Lingayat. He was admitted to the school in the year 1979. Thus, the documentary evidence...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »