Mumbai Court October 2010 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.
Subhash Sambhashiv Bona Pawar, Age 49 Yrs. Vs. Kantabai Sambhaji Landg ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-07-2010
1. This revision application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 25th February, 2004 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parbhani in R.C.S. No. 2 169 of 2000.2. The respondent herein filed R.C.S. No.169 of 2000 in the Court of 2nd Jt. C.J.J.D., Parbhani against the present petitioner original defendant claiming recovery of possession of shop admeasuring 9'x15' situated in Plot No.112, Ward No.13 of Sadguru Nagar, Parbhani. It was contention of the respondent original plaintiff in the said suit that the defendant is owner of the suit property. The plaintiff had obtained STD-PCO for the purpose of running the said business. Accordingly the plaintiff occupied one shop i.e. suit property from the defendant on the basis of tenancy in the year, 1995. The rent of the suit shop was settled at Rs.500/- per month and since the date of occupation till October, 1999 she had regularly remitted the rent to the defendant. However, the dispute started by the defendant o...
Mohammad Umar Hafij. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2010
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 30 /07/2002 passed in the Sessions Case No.276 of 2001 by the learned II Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane whereby the Appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, present appeal is filed by the appellant through jail.2. Brief facts which led to the prosecution of the Appellant are: Complaint was lodged by Sultan (PW3) in respect of the incident which occurred on 27/08/1995 at about 9:00 a.m. at Ambewadi, Thane, after the first informant was informed by his sister's daughter Shabnam (PW4) that his sister Najmunnisa was stabbed on her chest and face by the appellant Mohammad Hafiz. Najmunnisa died as a result of hemorrhagic shock due to the stab injuries to vital organ...
Madhuvihar Cooperative Housing Society, and ors. Vs. M/S. Jayantilal I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2010
1. The present appeals, which have been remanded for decision afresh, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 3233 of 2006, challenge the judgment and decree, dated 31st March 2004, in L.C. Suit No. 4385 of 1997, passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai.2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of present appeals, are as under :(a) On 26-8-1980, an agreement was arrived at between the vendors and the appellant in Appeal No. 989/2004 (original defendant no.1 - hereinafter referred to as "promoter"), in respect of 8559.57 sqm. of land in CTS No. 1068 at village Kandivili, Tehsil Borivali, Greater Mumbai. Subsequently, under the Revised Draft Development Plan, a 44 ft. wide road was indicated and, consequently, the area admeasuring 8559.57 sqm. stood divided. On account of this division, a plot admeasuring 6071 sqm. emerged as the suit land. On 16-11-1984, the promoter obtained NOC under Section 21(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, ...
Maan Tourist Transport Service (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. This appeal filed by the importer is against the following order of the learned Commissioner of Customs: “12. I accordingly order as follows: (a) The imported car is appropriately classifiable under CTH 87032299. (b) The declared value is rejected under rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The value is re-determined, under the provisions of said valuation rules adopting the value of contemporaneous import, as Rs 54,62,939/-. (c) The import is not entitled to concessional rate under notification 21/2002-Cus [Sr No. 344 (2)] (d) The said car is confiscated under Section 111 (d) and Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I allow the importer an option to redeem the said vehicle on payment of Rs 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lacs only) as redemption fine in lieu of confiscation, under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The option must be exercised within 30 days of receipt of this order by the importer. (e) I impose a penalty of Rs 5,00,00...
Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Custo ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal against the denial of refund claim by the lower authorities on the ground that the appellant has not submitted required documents in support of their claim to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. 2. On going through the impugned order, I find that the lower appellate authority instead of deciding the issue after examining the documents passed vogue order which is not permitted in terms of law. Accordingly, the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority to examine the issue afresh after verifying the documents produced by the appellant as to whether the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable or not and if it is applicable the adjudicating authority shall pass speaking order after giving an reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case. In this term the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....
M/S.Harbhajan Sarabjeet and Associates. Vs. Maharashtra Krishna Valley ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
1. The arbitration application has been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator.2. The parties admittedly had entered into a contract which 2 arp41-07 contains the following clause. Clause 30.1. Except where otherwise specified in contract and subject to the powers delegated to him by the Corporation under the Code rules then in force the decision of the Superintending Engineer of the Circle for the time being shall be final conclusive and binding on all parties of the contract upon all questions relating to the meaning of the specification, design, drawing and instructions hereinabove mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or...
Prakash Bhaurao Parmeshwar, Age 40 Years, Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.1 By the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed that the impugned order dated 1.9.2009, passed by the Appellate Authority and Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner herein Exh. 'G' be quashed and set aside. 2 The petitioner herein was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the school of respondent no.4 Society by order dated 19.6.11991, and subsequently, his appointment was approved and came to be confirmed by respondent no.4 Society. Respondent no.1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent no.2 is the Director of Education (Primary). Respondent no.3 is the Education Officer (Primary) and Respondent no.4 is Unnati Shikshan Sanstha i.e. Society, which runs the school, namely Dnyanesh Vidya Mandir (Secondary School) I.e. Res...
Hindustan Lever Limited, and ors. Vs. Union of India, and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
1) By the above Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners take exception to the order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the Respondent No.2 abovenamed by which order the applications filed by the Petitioners for fixation of brand rate of drawback for export of tea were rejected and the letters dated 19.01.1987 and 20.01.1987 which were the revocation letters issued in respect of brand rate letters No.(Bom.305) dated 4.4.86 and brand rate letter (Cal57) dated 22.7.86 were confirmed and resultantly recovery of the draw back amount with appropriate interest was ordered.2) The factual matrix involved in the above Petition can be stated thus : The Petitioners are inter alia engged in the activity of manufacture and export of various goods. The said activity of export is carried out by the Petitioners in its capacity as a trading house where under the Petitioners obtain duty paid goods and subject the said goods to process of manufacture as understood in excise ...
Maharashtra Certified Auditors Association, and anr. Vs. the State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
1. Both these petitions have a common challenge namely the validity of the circular dated 11th November 1996 issued by the Government of Maharashtra through the Department of Cooperation and Textiles in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 81(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (`the Act' for short). The first petition has been filed by the Association of Certified Auditors and Chartered Accountants, whereas the second petition has been filed by the Credit Cooperative Societies of the employees from two different companies viz. Kirloskan Oil Engines Private Limited and M/s.Sudarshan Chemicals Limited.2. Section 81(1) of the Act reads as under : "81. Audit. (1)(a) The Registrar shall audit, or cause to be audited, at least once in each cooperative year, by a person authorised by him by general or special order in writing in this behalf the accounts of every society which has been given financial assistance including guarantee by the State Government or Govern...
Sharad Bhagwat Joshi, Age 47 Years, Vs. Bhagwat Puroshottam Joshi, and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
1. This Appeal from Order is filed by the appellant herein aggrieved by the order dated 01st March, 2003 in Misc. Application No. 154 of 2003.2. The brief stated in the said application are as under :-3. The appellant herein filed application, under Order 9 Rule 4 for restoration of suit, which was dismissed in default. The appellant who is original applicant had filed Special Civil suit bearing No. 178 of 1998 for partition and separate possession of his ancestral property, against some of the non applicants. The Trial was commenced and suit was fixed for effective hearing on 23rd June, 2003. On the said date when the matter was called out for hearing, the plaintiff and his Advocate remained absent and even no application was filed for adjournment.4. It is the case of the applicant that on 23rd June, 2003 he was intending to remain present before the Court to lead evidence. However, on 22nd June, 2003 he was suffering from 'Ashtama', and therefore, could not inform his Advocate Shri C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »