Mumbai Court March 2010 Judgments

Shiv Mandhukar Giri Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Police Statio ...

Court: Mumbai

Shrihari P. Davare, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. By consent of the parties, the present criminal revision application is taken up for final hearing, at the stage of admission.3. By present criminal revision application, applicant (original accused) has challenged the judgment and order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aurangabad in criminal misc. application No. 35/2010, thereby rejecting an application of applicant for condonation of delay and depriving him to file appeal against conviction.4. Admittedly, applicant herein was convicted in R.C.C. No. 2156/2007 by the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/in default to suffer S.I. for two months. Further, applicant (original accused) ought to have filed appeal, if any, within prescribed period of limitation i.e. o...

indoworth India Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under Indian Companies Act ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR2074,2010(175)LC260(Bombay),2010(253)ELT364(Bom)

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 directing the petitioner to deposit about half of the amount of the duty i.e. to deposit an amount of Rs. 4 corers. Mr. Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General has raised a preliminary objection to the tenability of this petition on the ground that the appeal to this Court is provided under Section 35G 'from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal'. Mr. Mishra relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Nivaram Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. CEGAT, Madras reported in : 2008 (12) S.T.R. 98 (Mad) wherein Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, Chief Justice as he then was took a view that the writ petition ought not to be entertained if it results in short circuiting the statutory remedies of appeal, revision etc.4. Mr. Manohar, learned Counsel for t...

Hanmant Nagnath Gavali (Bhosale) Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed on 30th March 1991 by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, at Solapur in Sessions case No. 193 of 1987. The appellant-accused No. 3 came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one more month. While this appeal was admitted on 3rd June 1991, the appellant was released on bail and as of now he continues to be on bail. The accused No. 1 is the father of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been acquitted.2. As per the prosecution, the deceased Bhagwan son of Pandu Narale and accused are residents of village Bhadali and were holding agricultural lands adjacent to each other. One Bhagwan Shewale was holding agricultural land admeasuring about 2 1/2 acres wh...

Sanjay S/O Badriprasad Khandelwal Vs. Smt. Sukhiyabai W/O Baratiya Gon ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1894

1. These six first appeals can be disposed by a common judgment since they involve the identical questions and arise out of the same accident. The appeals are preferred by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident feeling aggrieved by fastening of liability on him and exonerating the Insurance Company.2. The facts giving rise to the appeals are as follows-The appellant is the owner of the truck No. 5691. The appellant used to carry coal in the said truck. On the date of the incident, the truck was coming from Ballarshah to Chahndrapur after loading the same with the coal. On its way, the truck turned turtle. It is alleged that some 11 to 12 persons were travelling in the said truck. When the said truck met with an accident, four persons died on the spot and four persons suffered injuries. They laid the claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.3. The present appellant contested the claim. He admitted to be the owner of the vehicle. He also admitted th...

Paramount Health Services (Tpa) Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Assistant Commi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1632

1. With the consent of counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and counsel appearing on behalf of the First, Second and Sixteenth Respondents (The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)2( 2), Commissioner of Income Tax TDS and Union of India respectively) the Petition is taken up on Board for admission and is called out for hearing. Rule, with the consent of Counsel, made returnable forthwith.2. On the request of counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, leave granted to delete Respondent Nos. 3 to 15.3. The First Petitioner is engaged in the business of acting as a third party administrator for processing claims of policyholders insured by insurance companies. The Petitioner has instituted, on 10th October, 2009 a petition under Article 226 challenging the jurisdiction of the First and Second Respondents in calling upon the First Petitioner to deduct tax at source under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on payments made to hospitals. The petition has now been p...

Shailaja Kamalakar Limaye and ors. Vs. Nilkanth Ganesh Pethe,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1425

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties heard forthwith.2. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenges the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the above Notice of Motion. By the order under challenge delivered on 16th April, 2009, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellants' Notice of Motion.3. The appellants before us are the original plaintiffs whereas the respondents are the original defendants.3.1 The appellants filed a suit in this Court being Suit No. 2314 of 2008 against the original defendants for a declaration that the Deed of Conveyance dated 25th October, 2004 executed between the original defendant No. 1 and original defendant No. 3 in respect of a plot of land No. 442, TPS IV, Mahim Division, Mumbai is illegal, bad in law and not binding on the plaintiffs. The original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to this appeal.4. The further relief that the plaintiffs claim is a permanent inju...

Shri Shriram Gangaram Gupta Alias Shri Shriram Gangaram Jaiswal Vs. Ve ...

Court: Mumbai

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of Judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No. 590 of 1980. By that Judgment, the Suit is partly decreed for refund of the consideration amount alongwith interest, though main relief for specific performance of the agreement of sale of suit shop has been dismissed.2. The Appellant is original Plaintiff. He challenges dismissal of his suit for specific performance of agreement of sale.3. The dispute relates to Shop No. 21 situated on ground floor of building called 'Sahyadari Apartments and Shopping Centre', situated at Lokmanya Tilak Road, Borivali(West), Mumbai. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the original Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and Respondent No. 4 is original Defendant No. 4. For the sake of convenience, they may be referred by their nomenclature in the Suit before the Trial Court.4. The facts necessary for the purpose of Appeal are that the Plaintiff claims to have entered into an oral agreement with the Defendant N...

Nivrutti S/O Deorao Biradar Vs. Balikabai D/O Shivram Biradar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)112BOMLR1988

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by III Additional District Judge, Latur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 293 of 1984 decided on 3.10.1989, whereby the dismissal of R.C.S. No. 191 of 1980 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udgir by order dated 11.7.1984 was set aside and the suit was decreed, thereby declaring the appellants and Respondent No. 2 in said appeal (present Respondent Nos. 1 to 9) as tenants in common of the suit property and restraining present appellant Nivrutti (orig. defendant No. 1) from obstructing peaceful possession of Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 over remaining unsold portion to the extent of 2 acres 14 gunthas out of the land bearing Survey No. 43A situated at village Manki, Taluka Udgir.2. Briefly stated, Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 are the daughters of Respondent No. 9 Muktabai. The agricultural lands bearing survey Nos. 43A and 42 of village Manki, Taluka Udgir were owned by Shivram, the father of Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and ...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko 1. These appeals are against the rejection of two refund claims, one for the period from 10/04/99 to 30/06/99 and the other for the period from 30/06/99 to 04/07/99. The refund was claimed for duty paid on frozen desert, ice cream, etc. (falling under Chapter 21 of CETA schedule) on which duty had been paid on MRP basis in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. 1944. During the period from 10/04/99 to 29/06/99, the appellant had cleared their products with the MRP of Rs.3/- printed thereon, but duty was paid by mistake on the basis of the MRP declared in the relevant price declaration (Rs.5/-). Subsequently, the assessee realized their mistake of having paid duty on the basis of the higher MRP wrongly declared by them, and accordingly, claimed refund of the excess duty paid by them. This claim was allowed by the original authority after considering the documents produced by the party. The appellate authority found that the lower authority had not verified the a...

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Intervet Laboratories L ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko 1. After examining the records and hearing both sides we find that, in this appeal of the Revenue, the short question to be considered is whether the activity of labeling, by the respondent, of the goods imported by them would amount to manufacture under Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act. The lower appellate authority held that the said activity would not amount to manufacture in terms of Chapter Note 5 to Chapter 30 of the CETA schedule and accordingly set aside the demand of duty raised on the assessee by the original authority. In the present appeal, the appellant has inter alia referred to the Tribunal’s order No.376/2003-NB(B) reported as German Remedies Ltd., Vs. CCE, Mumbai (2003 (162) ELT 429 (Tri-Del.). The appellant states that the said order of the Tribunal was not accepted by the Board and accordingly a civil appeal was filed there-against before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The ld. Counsel for the respondent at this juncture points out that...