Mumbai Court February 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tata Motors Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC227
1. The respondents had filed 32 refund claims with Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise in respect of cars sold by them which were registered as taxi as per Notification No. 64/2003-C.E. dated 06.08.2003. The admissibility of refund was subject to following condition: (i) the manufacturer should furnish a certificate from State Transport Authority to the effect that the said car has been registered for use only as taxi within three months from the factory of the manufacturer or such extended period as the Deputy Commissioner may allow, (ii) upon receipt of communication from the Dy. Commissioner that the claimant is otherwise eligible for sanction, the manufacturer has to refund equal amount of duty 2. The above claims were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the bank realization certificate submitted by them did not match with the cheque Nos. issued by them for refund of duty to the ultimate customer. This order was however set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) who...
Sarubai W/O Laxman Bhokare, Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1866
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to Judgment rendered by Principal Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Sessions Case No. 97/2004. By the impugned Judgment, appellants are convicted for offences punishable under Section 304II read with 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 457 read with 34 of the I.P.C. They have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ (Rs. Two thousand) each in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) each in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months, respectively, for the above offences. Both the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The incident giving rise to the prosecution occurred in the evening of 19th February 2004 at residential house of deceased Muktabai. Her husband -Bapurao and appellant No. 2 - Laxman are brothers inter se. ...
Mr. Roy Joseph Creado, Vs. Sk. TamisuddIn S/O Late Sk. Nazir Ahmed, a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR242; 2008CriLJ1509; 2008(3)MhLj705
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This is an application filed by the original accused. They challenge legality and correctness of orders passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad and learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in SCC 2888/2001 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 76/2003. They seek quashing of the orders of issuing process and denying discharge from the Criminal Case. 2. The applicants allege that the proceedings of Criminal Case (SCC No. 2888/2001) are liable to be quashed inasmuch as the same amounts to abuse of process of law. 3. Background facts may be summarised as follows:The Respondent No. 1 Sk. Tamisuddin claims himself to be Special Power of Attorney of deceased Sairabi. He alleges that on 20.6.2001 the applicants issued a cheque for amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac) towards part payment of agreed amount payable to Sairabi for her share in an immovable property. The cheque was presented for encashment in the concerned Bank. However, it wa...
Bilal Ismail Bhayat and ors. Vs. M.M.R.D.A. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR313; 2008(2)BomCR250; (2008)110BOMLR495
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Plaintiffs seek an injunction restraining the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and its Executive Engineer who are arrayed as Defendants from demolishing four shops belonging to the Plaintiffs in implementation of an order passed on 23rd November, 2007 by the Executive Engineer. 2. The subject matter of the suit is four shops described as Shop Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 situated opposite Lalit Bhavan in an area known as Anthony Compound, C.D. Barfiwala Road, Mumbai 400 058. The area of these shops admeasures, according to the Plaintiffs about 1700 sq. ft. The Executive Engineer issued three notices dated 31st October, 2005 under Section 3(Z2) of the Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 calling upon the Plaintiffs to produce evidence showing that Shop Nos.3, 4 and 5 were constructed prior to 1st January, 1995. The Plaintiffs submitted a reply claiming inter alia tenancy of the said shops since 1996. A writ petition was filed b...
Mr. Manguesh Rajaram Wagle and Mrs. Smita Manguesh Wagle Vs. Mr. Sures ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR873; 2008(2)BomCR248; 2008(3)MhLj297
N.A. Britto, J.1. Rule.2. By consent heard forthwith. 3. The Petitioners herein are the Plaintiffs in R.C.S. No. 279/2000/C. In this Writ Petition, they challenge the Order dated 10-1-2008 of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Panaji by which the Plaintiffs application dated 9-10-2007 to strike off the additional written statement dated 3-3-2004 has been rejected. 4. The Plaintiffs had filed the said Civil Suit inter alia seeking a declaration that they were the tenants of the suit premises and in the alternative had also prayed for recovery of possession of the said suit premises in case it was held that they were dispossessed. 5. The Defendant No. 2 resisted the suit pleading that Rajaram Wagle, the predecessor in title of the Plaintiffs who was the tenant in respect of the suit premises had surrendered the possession of the suit premises, wherein he along with Defendant No. 1 used to carry on the business of retail and wholesale of liquor. The Defendant No. 1 had resisted t...
Sardar Shafique Ahmed Son of Mohammed HussaIn Vs. Citizen Welfare Educ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR428
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition impugns the Judgement and order dated 13-8-1996 rendered by the School Tribunal at Nashik dismissing Appeal No. 40/1994 and thereby turning down the petitioner's challenge to the order of termination dated 3-9-1994 and consequently dismissing his plea for reinstatement under the Respondent No. 4 i.e. Sardar High School and Engineering College, Islamnagar, Malegaon. 2. The Petitioner at the relevant time held the qualifications of B.Com. B.P.Ed. and M.P.Ed. and as per him the Respondent No. 1 Society had released an advertisement, invited applications for two posts of Assistant Teachers with qualifications of B.Sc., B.Ed/B.P.Ed. and B.A., B.Ed./B.P.Ed. and this requirement was published in the local newspaper by name Citizen Times on 15-7-1991. In response to the said advertisement the petitioner claims to have submitted an application, he underwent the selection process and was issued an appointment order dated 12-6-1991. The said appointment was on ...
Angerlehner Michel Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shrimouli Builders and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR518; 2008(3)MhLj702
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The above proceedings can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. 2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail as they have already been set out in the order and judgment dated 9.10.2007 passed by the learned single Judge in the above proceedings and the order of the Appeal Court dated 15.2.2007 in an appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge in Appeal No. 127 of 2007. 3. The arbitration proceedings were initiated by Angerlehner Michel Construction Pvt. Ltd. -the Petitioner in the arbitration proceeding. The moneys have been deposited by various third parties on account of the Judgment debtor/Respondent No. 1 in the above proceedings.4. The order of the learned single Judge was set aside and remanded for a fresh hearing. 5. It is however, pertinent to note that the question of priorities in respect of the Petitioner Angerlehner Michel Construction Pvt.Ltd. has been decided against it by the learned single Judge. No appeal has been f...
Bhanusing Vishnu Patil, Vs. Shri Vishwas Arjun Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR768; 2008(3)BomCR686; 2008(3)MhLj147
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forth with and heard by consent.2. In the present case, the defendant has assigned two reasons for the failure to file written statement in time permitted by law. 3. The first reason is that the petitioners had gone to Surat for earning their livelihood. There were un-precedental and heavy rains at Surat and that due to said reasons petitioners were held-up at Surat.4. Second reason is assigned about petitioner No. 1 & 2's sickness & being bed ridden, and also due to their old age. It is further urged that the petitioner No. 3 was involved in attending other two sick and infirm petitioners.5. Both these grounds of facts are supported by the affidavit of Bhanusing.6. The learned trial Judge did not deal in impugned Judgment with the aspect of the obstruction due to rain, may be because said ground went un-opposed. Yet learned trial court did not either accept or reject this ground.7. The learned Judge has however dealt with the aspect of th...
Gram Vikas Seva Mandal and ors. Vs. Deore Ranjana Wanji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj532
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner-management is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 15-4-1997 rendered by the School Tribunal at Nashik allowing Appeal No. 26/1993 and thereby directing the reinstatement of the respondent-Teacher on her original post with backwages from the date of termination. While admitting this petition the prayer for stay to the order of reinstatement was declined but on the relief of payment of backwages interim stay was granted on 16-4-1997 and consequently, the respondent No. 1 teacher was reinstated. As per the instructions received by Mr. Mihir Desai, the learned Counsel for respondent-Teacher, she was subsequently declared surplus and absorbed in some other School under Rule 26 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 w.e.f. 20-2-2003.2. Though this petition has been filed by the management, the Head Master who was original respondent No. 4 in the Appeal filed by the petitioner has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 and without any reasons. As per the respondent-Tea...
Sitaram Balaram Surve Vs. Prabhakar Vidyadhar More and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR260; 2008(5)MhLj26
A.S. Oka, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. The appellant is the original plaintiff who has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 28th July, 2003 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai. In a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellant, a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to entertain the suit was framed. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that in view of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, it is the Court specified in the section which will have the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The learned trial Judge held that the jurisdiction of his Court was barred and hence, he dismissed the suit.2. The only submission made by the counsel for the appellant is that instead of dismissing the suit, the Court could have returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The submission of the learned Advocate...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »