Mumbai Court June 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.
Jafar ShamshuddIn MomIn Vs. Nighoj GramIn Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanst ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
A.V. Potdar, J.1. None for respondent No. 1, though duly served.2. By this application the applicant has assailed the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in criminal appeal No. 39/2010. Vide judgment and order dated 03.03.2010, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the criminal appeal for default.3. Rule.4. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.5. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the just decision of this criminal application may briefly be stated thus-A) Present respondent No. 1 had filed complaint bearing Summary Case No. 814/2003 Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant before the JMFC, Parner. By the judgment and order dated 27.01.2010, learned JMFC, Parner allowed the summary case and pleased to convict the applicant for an offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant was sentenced to suffer RI for one month and to p...
Suresh Motwani Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J) There is no representation for the applicant/appellant despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. On the last occasion also, there was no representation despite notice, but for the ends of justice, we granted another opportunity to the appellant and hence today’s proceedings. 2. We have examined the records and heard the learned SDR. There are two applications before us, both filed by the appellant, one for condonation of delay of his appeal, and other for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty imposed on him. The impugned order was issued to the appellant on 28.3.05. Any date of receipt of the order is not seen entered in the memo of appeal, nor is any such date shown in the COD application. In this context, it is submitted by the learned SDR that the impugned order was received by M/s Roofit Industries Ltd (of which the present applicant is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director) on 2.4.05. Contextually, it ...
Ayub Ahmed Sayyed Age37 Years, Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Ra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-26-2010
1. By preferring the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the charge sheet and proceedings of RTC No.88/2010 on the file of JMFC, Rahuri, which arise out of crime No.98/2010 registered with Rahuri police Station for an offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Rule.3. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for applicant and learned APP, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.4. The facts, which gave rise to file the present criminal application, may briefly be summarized thus The Collector, Ahmednagar had auctioned a stand strip situated in river bed Mula at Mauje DaradgaonThadi, for the year 200910. The applicant was the highest bidder in the said auction and hence the said auction was granted in favour of the applicant. The applicant had purchased the said auction for Rs.96,00,000/. As per the terms and conditions of the auction, the auction purchaser was required to deposit 1/4th of the auction ...
State of Goa Through the Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
A.S. Oka, J.1. Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 25th August, 2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1894') made at the instance of the respondent.2. The acquisition relates to the area of land admeasuring 1350 square meters bearing Survey No. 48/4 part situated at Taleigaon village of Tiswadi Taluka, Goa. The award under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894 was made on 13th September, 1996. The market value offered under the award is Rs. 25/- per square meter. In the Reference under Section 18 of the said Act of 1894, claim made by the respondent was for market value for Rs. 1000/- per square meter. The Reference Court partly allowed the reference and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square meter....
Godi Kamgar Griha Sanstha Ltd. and Bharat Infrastructure and Engineeri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
S.J. Kathawalla, J.1. By this Writ Petition the Petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the common order dated 28th March, 2008, passed by the Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai in three Appeal from orders bearing Nos. 222 of 2007, 227 of 2007 and 229 of 2007.2. By an Order of this Court dated 6th May, 2008 the above Writ Petition was admitted and the hearing of the Writ Petition was expedited. Since the Writ Petition pertains to the issue involving redevelopment of seven old dilapidated buildings of the Petitioner No. 1 having 172 members and since one out of the two new buildings of 18 floors i.e. Building C-1, was ready for occupation since the year 2007 and occupation certificate dated 8th August, 2007 also issued by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC), certain interim orders directing allotment and handing over possession of flats to the members in the said Building C-1 have been passed by this Court from time to time. The Writ Petition is now ta...
Shri Anthony Vaz Son of Luis Vaz Vs. Shri John A. Lopies Son of Dinies ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
ORDER(a) The impugned judgment and award is modified. The total amount of compensation will be Rs. 84,000/- instead of Rs. 64,000/-.(b) The rest of the impugned award is maintained. There shall be no order as to costs....
Ramu S/O Vijay Mandal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
Shrihari P. Davare, J.1. The challenge, in this appeal, is to the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant by judgment and order dated 31.10.2009, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2008, thereby convicting the appellant/accused herein for the offence punishable under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ with default condition for nonpayment of fine amount, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month, and also convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ with default condition for nonpayment of fine amount, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. Both the afore said sentences were made to run concurrently.2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, can be s...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-i Vs. Allied Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Revenue has filed this appeal. Today the matter was listed for admission. As the issue involved is of full payment of penalty under Section 11AC, while adjudicating the case the Assistant Commissioner passed the following order:- 1] I confirm the demand of Rs. 1,45,102/- (Rupees One lakh forty five thousand one hundred and two only) [Rs.141333/- Cenvat +Rs.3769/- Cess] under Section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 against M/s. Allied Industries, Wada and order for appropriation of the amounts of Rs. 1,42,800/- and Rs.2,302/- already paid by them, initially, and after the notice towards duty. 2] I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,45,102/- (Rupees One lakh forty five thousand one hundred and two only) under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on M/s. Allied Industries, Wada and order for appropriation of the amounts of an amount of Rs.36,276/- already paid by them towards penalty. 3] I order f...
M/S. Rajguru Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preven ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant filed an appeal bearing No. C/458/10, which was found defective by the Registry and the learned Advocate today mentioned the matter to withdraw the appeal being defective. 2. Heard. 3. As requested by the learned Advocate who wants to withdraw the appeal and there is a report from the Registry also that appeal is defective. Accordingly, the request of the learned Counsel is accepted and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....
M/S. Shivang Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central E ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The applicant filed this application for the stay of penalty imposed on them amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rule 2002. 2. On perusal of the record, it is found that duty involved is Rs. 11,966/-. As per Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 the maximum penalty can be imposed upto Rs.10,000/- or the duty involved whichever is higher. The penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- is not warranted in this case. 3. After hearing both the sides at length, I take up the appeal itself for disposal after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty. 4. As discussed, the maximum penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed upto Rs.11,966/- in this case equal to the duty involved, I reduce the penalty to Rs.11,966/- which is to be paid within 4 weeks of the communication of this order. 5. With these observations, the appeal and the stay applications are disposed of....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »