Mumbai Court January 2008 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.
Vishwadeep Pressparts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)(128)ECC50
1. The appellants herein who are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapter 87 of the CETA, 1985 had procured capital goods viz. steel body mechanical power press of 100 ton capacity in March 1998 and availed cenvat credit thereon. After use of the cenvated capital goods for about 7 years they cleared the same in March 2005 and paid excise duty and education cess thereon. As per Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, when the inputs or capital goods are removed as such from the factory, an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs or capital goods is to be paid by the manufacturer.2. The assessee paid differential duty in July 2005 and also paid interest on the duty amount. The demand of differential duty was raised by the show cause notice on October 2005 and a demand was confirmed together with interest. Penalty of amount equal to differential duty was also imposed. The duty demand and penalty were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), whose order was...
Rajesh Madhukar Srisundar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1857
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2004, whereby appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight (8) years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months more. 2. Shorn of unessentials, the prosecution case is that the appellant and daughter of injured/complainant Smt. Imiliyana D'suza fell in love and married. The daughter of the complainant resided with him at Mumbai for some period. The marriage was not successful. It was inter-caste marriage and the daughter of the complainant was being subjected to cruelty by the appellant in the matrimonial house. The complainant Smt. Imiliyana had opposed their marriage. Still however, initially she did not resist when they had married somewhere in 1995. The spouses fell apart after 2-3 years. T...
Shri Suresh S/O Premraj Mutha Vs. Municipal Corporation Through Its Mu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR328; 2008(6)BomCR241; 2008(3)MhLj207
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. By impugned order delay of about 5 months and 8 days caused in filing of appeal has been condoned by 1st appellate court. 3. The said order is challenged on various grounds inter-alia that:a) Delay has not been explained on day to day basis.b) Filing of appeal was delayed even after obtaining certified copy.c) The Corporation has a Law Department and delay is caused sheerly due to negligence.4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on various Judgments namely:(i) Banarsidas and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in 1956 S.C.520. (ii) P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another reported in : 1997ECR785(SC) . (iii) Kamalbai w/o Narasaiyya Shrimal and another v. Ganpat s/o Vithalrao Gavare reported in : 2007(1)BomCR51 . (iv) State of Gujarat v. Sayed Mohd. Baquir El Edross reported in : [1982]1SCR551 . (v) Laxman N. Divekar v. State of Maharashtra reported in : AIR1998...
Shriram Gangaram Bute, President of Gajanan Prathamik Shikshak Sahakar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR726
R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal, directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2325 of 2006, raises an important question as to the jurisdiction of the learned single Judge to direct the authorities in the Co-operation Department to appoint an administrator on a society, and to hold elections of such society. The facts in the context of which this question arose are as under:2. Appellant Shri Shriram Bute as well as respondent No. 3 Shri Motiram Thombre claimed to be Presidents of Shri Gajanan Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Gruhanirman Sanstha, a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The term of the office of office bearers of the society was over. However, both, appellant and respondent No. 3, had issued notices of general body meeting for electing new office bearers, appointing different persons as Returning Officers. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, by his order dated 21st April, 2006, therefore, s...
Shree Ramdeobaba Smarak Sarvajanik Samiti, a Public Trust registered u ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR131; 2008(3)BomCR114; (2008)110BOMLR524
R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 2211 of 1997. The appellant management raises question as to whether the first appointment of teacher in an institution can itself be of a permanent nature. 2. Respondent No. 2 Dr. A.P. Rao was appointed as Principal of appellant's college after his selection by duly constituted selection Committee and approval by the university. He joined his duties on 26.09.1994. On 13.06.1995 he was informed that his work was not satisfactory. On 05.08.1995 the management decided to terminate services of respondent No. 2 and by order dated 09.08.1995 services of respondent No. 2 Dr. Rao were terminated after paying him a month's salary in lieu of notice. He challenged his termination before the University and College Tribunal. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 15.07.1997 held in favour of respondent No. 2 and allowed the appeal. It held that the appointment of respondent No. 2 was not on...
Legal Representatives of Manohar (Smt. Shamlata Wd/O Manohar Raut, Vij ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Bom155; 2008(2)ALLMR743; 2008(3)BomCR166
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows The suit was initially instituted by one Surendrasing Ramrao Naik through his constituted attorney Shri Vishveshwar Tukaramji Giripunje. Subsequently, the original plaintiff Surendrasing sold the suit property to his constituted attorney Vishveshwar. Both now are plaintiffs in this suit. The defendant Manohar is the neighbour of plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner of open land in ward No. 26, Circle No. 6 Zilla Road, Mahal Nagpur. The defendant has his house towards North of the said land bearing Municipal Corporation No. 342/1. The plaintiff submits that the defendant has committed encroachment shown by letters HBCDNPT as shown in the plaint map, and the encroachment is to the extent of 159 sq.ft. It is alleged that the defendant committed the encroachment by constructing a Well in the year 1980. The plaintiff further contends that there was a dispute regarding the land ABCD...
Ruby Coach Builders Limited Vs. Shri P.S. Ghose, Member, Industrial Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR143]; 2008(4)MhLj270
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The Petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Mumbai, which is aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 29-9-1995 rendered by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court at Mumbai thereby allowing Complaint(ULP)No.692/1994. The Industrial Court held that the petitioner company was guilty of engaging in acts of unfair labour practice under item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') and consequently directed the petitioner company to (a) pay wages for the month of June 1993 (b) to pay wages for 14 days of suspension of operation commenced from 13-6-1993 and continued till 13-7-1993 and (c) to pay bonus for the accounting year 1992-93. While admitting this petition interim-relief in terms of prayer Clause (b) was granted as per the order dated 21-12-1995 and consequently the impugned order remains stayed. 2. The petitioner has a factory building coaches of heavy vehicle...
Samson John Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Bom)131; [2008]300ITR188(Bom); 2008(4)MhLj771
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent of parties heard forthwith.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent in taking steps to sell the land and house standing thereon which according to the petitioner is of his ownership and stands in his name. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are seeking to recover tax dues of his father for the block period 1986-96 and considering the Explanation to Section 222(1) of the IT Act, that action is without jurisdiction.3. The petitioner's case is as under:The property was purchased on 3rd Dec, 1974 when the petitioner was a minor and in his name by his father. A house was constructed thereon somewhere in 1979-80. The petitioner was born on 25th Oct., 1969. The property and the property along with the house is shown as standing in the petitioner's name at least since the year 1979-80. The petitioner on attaining majority effected necessary corrective entries on 25th Oct., 1988 in the record of Khopoli Nagar Paris...
Bank of India Vs. Alibhoy Mohammed and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Bom81; 2008(4)ALLMR808; 2008(5)BomCR847
ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. The plaintiff (the bank) has filed the suit against the defendant No. 1 partnership firm, and it's partners, the defendant Nos. 2 to 5, holding them jointly and severally responsible for recovery of the suit claim.The Factual Matrix2. The plaint allegations reveal, sometime in the months of January and April, 1988 on the request of the defendant No. 1, who is engaged in the trading activities of import and export of leather merchandise, the plaintiffs Null Bazar Branch granted certain financial facilities to the defendant No. 1 which it failed to pay. Hence present suit was filed for recovery of their dues.3. The plaintiff bank claims that the defendant No. 1 failed to repay financial facility granted against Letter of Credit (L.C.) inspite of repeated demands and reminders.4. The plaintiff-bank also allege that the defendant No. 1 was granted over draft facility, in consideration of which it has executed Promissory Note on 31-12-1987 for Rs. 15,000/-; whereunder d...
Praful Vasani and anr. Vs. Mohammed Yunus Khan, Deceased Through Sehru ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR478; 2008(4)MhLj183
Abhay S. Oka, J.1. Heard the Counsel appearing for the appellants. On 29th November, 2007, a notice for final disposal at the admission stage was issued to the respondents. The office noting shows that the respondent No. 3 is represented by an Advocate and the respondent No. l(f) and 2 are duly served. Moreover, there is an affidavit of service filed by the Advocate for the appellants stating therein that the respondent Nos. l(a) to l(e) have been served with the private notice. In view of statement in the affidavit of service, the Appeal is taken up for final disposal.2. The appellants are the original defendant Nos. 3 and 4. The respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(k) are the legal representatives of the original plaintiffs. The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 11th April, 2002 passed by the trial Court. By the impugned judgment and decree, a decree of perpetual injunction has been passed against the appellants. The decree has been passed under Rule 10 of Order VIII ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »