Mumbai Court April 2010 Judgments

Sunil Anandrao Sawant Vs. Government of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. This appeal, by the appellant/original accused is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th March, 2003 passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 208 of 2002. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C. For the offence under Section 302, the appellant came to be sentenced to RI for life and for the offence under Section 307, the appellant came to be sentenced RI for seven years. Learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge directed all the substantive sentences to run consecutively.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:The appellant Sunil Sawant and deceased Sambhaji were real brothers. Both of them with their families resided in their ancestral house located in Chavan Galli, near Khandoba Talim in Shivaji Peth, Kolhapur. Sambhaji was residing in one room in front portion of house along with his wife PW7 Rajashri, his two sons PW6 Sum...

Shri Balwant S/O Sitaram Peshne (Since Deceased Through His L.Rs. Smt. ...

Court: Mumbai

R.C. Chavan, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the appellate judgment and order dated 12-8-1999 passed by the learned Member, Co-operative Appellate Court, dismissing petitioner's appeal against the judgment and order dated 2-2-1998 passed by the learned Judge, Co-operative Court, dismissing petitioner's dispute.2. Facts material for deciding this petition are as under:The petitioner is a member of the respondent-Society, which had been allotted 13 plots of land at Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur, by the Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) for construction of residential bungalows. The petitioner was allotted plot No. 122 out of these plots. The petitioner claimed to have spent substantial amount on the said plot. This allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the NIT, and the plot was allotted to the respondent-Society itself. The petitioner filed a civil suit numbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 588 of 1971 in the Civil Court against the NIT. The Civil Court, by order...

Mr. Arvind Navinchandra Mafatlal, Chairman Emeritus of Nocil Ltd. and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1880

B.R. Gavai, J.1. The applicants have approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing and setting aside the Order dated 21st August 2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, in C.C. No. 4700076/SW/2007. The applicants have also prayed for quashing the entire proceedings in the said complaint.2. The present case has a chequered history. Respondent No. 1 herein filed a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 423 read with Section 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicants and 14 other accused. In nutshell the contention of the complainants is that the complainant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') was owner of brand name 'WEEDOFF' and that though under the agreement between the complainant and the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 could not have manufactured the said product but had to source...

Parcel Carriers (India) Pvt. Ltd. a Private Limited Company Duly Regis ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR2258

A.P. Bhangale, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith in both the petitions.3. By these writ petitions, the petitioners seek issuance of a mandamus or such direction against the respondents to adhere to Clause 20.1 of the terms of the lease agreement between the petitioners and the Central Railway and for a direction/mandamus to the respondents to enter in to fresh lease agreement for a further period of two years by accepting 25% extra lease freight, as provided under Clause 20.1 of the lease agreement.4. Briefly stated the facts in Writ petition No. 1951 of 2009 are thus : The petitioners are a private limited company having their registered office at Vile Parle (E), Mumbai. They had entered into an agreement for leasing of parcel space in train No. 5645-DN, ...

Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and Commiss ...

Court: Mumbai

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waives service. With the consent of counsel, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The challenge in this proceeding is to a notice issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nashik on 30 April, 2009 seeking to exercise the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. The facts in so far as they are relevant to the controversy before the Court lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner filed a return of income for assessment year 2004-2005 on 1 November 2004 declaring a total income of Rs. 2.81 crores. An order was passed by this Court on 28 February 2005 in exercise of the jurisdiction under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by which six companies were amalgamated with the assessee with effect from 1 April 2006. Consequent to the order of amalgamation a consolidated return had to be filed. On 30 October 2005 the return was revised. On 27 December...

Kopran Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: Mr P.G. Chacko 1. In this application, the appellant seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of service tax of Rs 46,02,944/- demanded by the Commissioner for the period January 1998 to March 2002 and also in respect of the penalties imposed by him under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that this is a fit case for summary disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we proceed to deal with the appeal itself. 3. The appellant had collected technical fee from certain other companies as a consideration for technical know-how or assistance rendered to them under agreements entered into with them. There were three such agreements. One of these agreements was a Joint Venture Agreement, whereunder a Joint Venture Company (JVC) was constituted between M/s Kopran Ltd (appellant) and M/s Industrial Promotion Services (Uganda) 1995 Ltd. The JVC was called M/s Allied Pharm...

Elecon Engg Co Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports), Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J) After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. The appellant had filed a series of Bills of Entry during the period 1993-94 for clearance of goods under Project Import Regulations, 1986 claiming exemption from payment of duty under heading 98.01 of the CETA Schedule. Provisional release of the goods was allowed under bond. According to the Project Import Regulations, the importer was required to file certain documents evidencing the installation of the project and conclusion of the contract. In the present case, the appellant had imported the goods for setting up a Coal Handling Plant for M/s Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd. The reconciliation statement which was required to be filed under Regulation 7 was not filed within the prescribed period of three months from the date of the ...

Bharat Chheda Nikhil Shipping Agency and Another Vs. Commissioner of C ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko 1. The applications seek waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalties imposed on the appellants. 2. One of the appellants is M/s Mayank Enterprises, of which the proprietor is one Shri Ashish Bhanushankar Rawal. One of the advocates appearing for other appellants submits that Shri Ashish Bhanushankar Rawal is no more. He also produces the death certificate issued by the competent authority in the Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation. This certificate shows that Shri Ashish Bhanushankar Rawal passed away on 15.3.2009 i.e. more than one year ago. No application under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules by any legal heir of the deceased appellant is seen on record for continuation of the appeal proceedings. In the circumstances, for statistical purposes, we record the fact that appeal C/373/09 has already abated. 3. In the remaining cases, we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and the learned SDR for the Revenue. From the record...

Pune District Supervision Co-operative Society Through Its Chief Execu ...

Court: Mumbai

R.M. Savant, J.1. The above group of Petitions raise a common issue and involve identical facts and therefore, are heard and disposed of together. The challenge in the above Writ Petitions, save and except Writ Petition No. 5463 of 1996 is to the Circular dated 28th October, 2005 (Ex.O) issued by Respondent No. 2, the Letter/Order dated 19th October, 2005 (Ex.Q) issued by the Respondent No. 1 to the Respondent No. 2 and the Letter/Order dated 17th December, 2005 (Ex.P) issued by the Respondent No. 4. In Writ Petition No. 5463 of 1996, the challenge is to the Letter/Order dated 25th September, 2006 issued by the Respondent No. 3. The Letter/Order dated 19th August, 1996 issued by the Respondent No. 1. The said Letters/Orders are the predecessors to the Letters/Orders impugned in Writ Petition No. 124 of 2006 and the other companion matters.2. The Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 124 of 2006, 2268 of 1996, 3145 of 2006, 4158 of 2006, 5436 of 1996 and 7490 of 2006 are the District Superv...

Smt. Sushma Sudhakar Kadam, Vs. Waman S/O Shrawan Zanke and ors.

Court: Mumbai

K.U. Chandiwal, J.1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally. Record and proceedings is available, perused by the parties. The inadequate grant of compensation in M.A.C.P. No. 245 of 1994 by the learned Member, M.A.C.T., Jalgaon, made the claimants to rush to this Court.2. Sudhakar, 55 was Deputy Manager in Union Bank of India at Pune with monthly salary of Rs. 10,210=50. He was the only earning member in the family. The claimant Nos. 2 to 4 are taking education. Claimant No. 1 is his widow. The claimants claim an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation with interest. The learned Judge considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 5741=10 in the light of the evidence of Shri Jagtap, the Bank Officer, resultantly awarded an amount of Rs. 2,14,140/- payable by the respective respondents in proportion.3. I need not to traverse to the factum of accident, same is not criticized by the respondents. The short controversy that rest is about the computation of income of the deceased Sudhakar. The certific...