Mumbai Court November 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.
Threestar Forwarders Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), M ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. The counsel for the appellant in a letter dated 22.11.2010 seeks to withdraw the appeal inasmuch as the appellant has obtained favourable orders from the Commissioner of Customs. 2. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....
Biwater Penstocks Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th February, 2002 passed by the learned single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 124 of 1994 by which the learned single Judge remitted the matter to the Arbitrator for de novo consideration.2. The facts in a nutshell are as under.3. A contract was entered into between the appellant and the first respondent (hereinafter 'the respondent") for carrying out the work of manufacture, supply and delivery of 171 sluice gates and for supervision of erection and commissioning of the said gates at sites. Subsequently certain disputes arose between the parties. As per the terms of the contract, when a dispute arises, firstly a claim is required to be made before the Chief Engineer and thereafter the matter is to be sent to the Commissioner and subsequently a reference can be made to the Arbitrator. A sole Arbitrator was appointed in connection with the dispute in question and statement of claim was filed before the Arbitrator. The ...
Suresh Sadu Kamble. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents State.2. The Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 9th December, 1997 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, whereby the appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.3. The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:- Deceased Shakuntala was wife of the appellant. At the relevant time the appellant and the deceased were residing along with their two minor sons. The marriage of deceased was solemnized with the appellant eight years prior to the incident. The appellant was habituated to alcohol and used to demand money from the deceased of and on for purchasing alcohol.4. On 11th December, 1996 deceased Shakuntala prepared dinner and went to sleep at about 9 p.m. The appellant came to the house at about 11 p.m. There was a ker...
Bhimrao Shripat Khandare. Vs. State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.2. This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.1144 of 2000 whereby the appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for one year. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof, to suffer further R.I. for six months. Both the substantive sentences passed against the appellant were ordered to run concurrently.3. The prosecution case in a nut-shell is as follows:- One Vijay Vishnu Maske, who was attached to Oshiwara police station lodged a complaint with D.N.Nagar poli...
Deepak Ramchandra Chavria Age: 26 Years, and ors. Vs. the State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
1. As these appeals give rise to common questions of facts and law and arise out of the same incident and the same Sessions Case, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement.2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective appellants and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.3. These Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgement and order dated 16.4.2003 passed by the Special Judge under M.C.O.C. Act & Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, whereby the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellants are acquitted for the offence punishable under section 4 read with section 25 of the Indian Arms Act as well as offences punishable under section 3(1)(i) and 3(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. The Stat...
Commissioner of Customs (Acc and Import) Mumbai Vs. Samsung Electronic ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
1. Heard the learned JDR for the department. 2. Revenue is in appeal against the order No.CC-MJ/31/2009/Adj.ACC dated 06/08/2009 whereby the Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs.2,000/-. None appeared for the respondent despite notice nor there any request for adjournment. The case is taken up on merits. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent imported a consignment of mobile phones. The department alleged misdeclaration of value against the respondent. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against the respondent. The ld. Commissioner confirmed the differential duty of Rs.2,500/- and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,000/- against the respondent. The department has challenged the imposition of lesser amount of penalty on the ground that as per Section 112 (iii) the penalty should not be less than Rs.5,000/- if the differential duty is less than Rs.5,000/-. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the Section 112 (iii) the penalty should not be less than ...
Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif, Convict, Central Prison, Amravati [In Jail]. V ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.2. This is a petition by the prisoner, who has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner claims to have been convicted in 1993, and he is in jail since 24th October, 1991, i.e., from the date of arrest.3. As the petitioner is in prison and mostly he does not possess the documents of punishments of forfeiture of remission imposed on him during his jail term, the Writ Petition does not accompany those documents of two punishments. Petitioner prays for a direction for production of relevant documents, and upon production, the relief that the punishment of forfeiture of remission imposed on him be set aside.4. The respondent No.2 Superintendent of Prison has filed reply. In the reply, details of punishment are given, which are as follows:-[1] Petitioner was released on parole on 20-7-1994 for 7 days, however, he has reported on 8-12-94, which reporting was late by 133 day...
Shri Sadashiv Ragho Kolambe, and ors. Vs. Shri Sardar Khandu Tadvi, an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
1. These petitions take exception to the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2991 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay Camp at Jalgaon in Rev.Trb. Nos.23, 24, 27 and 28 of 1989.2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The suit land bearing Survey No.44 of village Sangavi originally belonged to the predecessors of the respondents. The suit land was divided into seven parts allotting one share to the seven persons separately with respect to the part of the land held by them. The cases were decided by the Trial authorities i.e. the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, by initiating proceedings in the year, 1976. The cases were kept pending for some years till the final decision of the Lingappa Pochanna's case was pronounced by the Supreme Court. The Tahsildar, Yawal had decided the cases on 31st October, 1985 in favour of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants non tribal preferred appeals against the said order before the Mah...
M/S. Ratan Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Acc and Export), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the captioned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals) whereby he set aside the Order-in-Original sanctioning refund of redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 90,000/-, and allowed the department’s appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant filed a shipping bill for exporting 19724 pieces of ladies nighties. It was alleged by the department that the appellant have misdeclared the goods as woven fabrics. Subsequently, the appellant filed another shipping bill declaring the goods as cotton knitted ladies nighties attracting lesser rate of draw-back. The Collector adjudicated the case and confiscated the goods. However, he allowed redemption of the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 4 lakhs and penalty of Rs. One lakh under Sec.113 read with Sec.125 of the Customs Act vide Order-in-Original No. S/6-22/94D dated 11.11.1994. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed appeal...
Baburao Son of Gomaji Dahat, Aged About 67 Years, and ors. Vs. Jawahar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
Date of reserving the Judgment. 25.10.2010 Date of Pronouncement. 15.11.2010 JUDGEMENT1. Writ Petition No. 878 of 2010 is filed by Assistant Teacher Baburao assailing the judgment dated 30/9/2009 of School Tribunal, Nagpur in his Appeal No. STN/349/1995 allowing it partially by granting him salary of one year and he prays for direction to his Employer and Education Officer to pay him back wages from 19/10/1995 till 31/7/2001 with all consequential benefits. He was terminated on 19/10/1995 and has attained the age of superannuation on 31/7/2001. Employer educational institution has filed Writ Petition No. 3186/2010 for quashing very same judgment. In Writ Petition No. 359/2010 another Assistant Teacher Mrs. Sudha has also assailed the identical judgment dated 30/9/2009 of School Tribunal, Nagpur in her Appeal No. STN/335/1995 allowing it partially by granting her salary of one year and she prays for direction to same Employer and education officer to pay him back wages from 19/10/1995 t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »