Mumbai Court July 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.
M/S. Yadgar Gold Fingers Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition takes exception to the order dated 18/10/2010 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein came to be dismissed and resultantly, the order passed under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 came to be confirmed. 3) Shorn of unnecessary details, it is required to be stated that the petitioner was held to be in default of the remittances to be made under the said Act. It is required to be noted that the aspect of applicability of the said Act to the petitioner as also the default in the remittances to be made by the petitioner under the said Act came to be decided by order dated 28/3/2007 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the said Act. 4) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Employees' Pro...
Rajendra S/O Nandlal Agrawal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
01) This writ petition challenges the order dated 15.9.2010 passed by the Honourable Minister (Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, reviewing his earlier order dated 5.9.1997 and granting renewal of "Semi Whole-Sale Kerosene Licence" to the respondent nos.5, upon payment of requisite amount and penalty. 02) The question is of the locus of the petitioner to challenge this order. Shri F.I.Mirza, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is carrying out the business of "Semi Whole-Sale Kerosene Dealer" and granting renewal of licence to the respondent nos.5 in the same area shall adversely affect the quota of Kerosene, which is made available to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is a person aggrieved. It is also his submission that on earlier occasion, the order was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.184 of 2009 on 1.7.2009, holding that the petitioner is not a...
Smt. Satyawati W/O Narendra Mishra and ors. Vs. Vishnukumar S/O Chaatr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 15/12/2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gondia by which the application filed by the petitioners for cross-examination of the plaintiff came to be rejected.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus -The petitioners herein were subsequently joined as party- defendants on 14/9/2010 in Special Civil Suit No.70 of 2007 filed by the respondents. On the petitioners being added as defendants, they filed their written statement in the suit and dealt with the claims and contentions therein. The petitioners also moved an application for they being granted an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff. The said application was numbered as Exh.141. The said application was filed on the ground that since the petitioners were joined as parties subsequently, they would b...
Shivaji S/O Manohar Kale Vs. the Additional Divisional Commissioner an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
1. The present petitioner was elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat and thereafter as a Sarpanch of village Asegaon Gram Panchayat, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. The present respondent no. 4 filed Complaint stating that the petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher with the school run by Mukteshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. He has not obtained prior permission of the management, so also, the said school is getting aid from the Zilla Parishad and, therefore, it is a local authority.2. The additional Collector vide its Judgment and Order dated 30/12/2010 held that the petitioner is dis-qualified to contest the election in view of Section 14 (i) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 [ For short, ' Act of 1958 ' ] and in view of Sub Section ( 2 ) of Section 42 of the M.E.P.S. Rules.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, filed Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who dismissed Appeal by its Judgment and Order dated 4/5/2011. The petitioner has assailed the said Judg...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-ii Vs. M/S. Shree Warana Agricult ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Revenue have filed this appeal against the order wherein mandatory penalty under Section 11AC has been dropped against the respondent. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent, a 100% EOU had cleared scrapped Aseptic Bags procured under procurement Certificates without payment of duty. These bags were sold in DTA without payment of excise duty the same was admitted by the respondent during the course of investigation. They have paid the duty, interest before issuance of the show cause notice. In adjudication order, the penalty of Rs. 19,600/- was confirmed against the respondent under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty. Aggrieved from the same, Revenue is before me. 3. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. 4. Heard the learned SDR. 5. The contention of the learned SDR is that when the respondent admitted that they have cleared the goods in DTA without pa...
M/S. Ntb International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, M ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Heard both sides. 2. The issues involved in the present appeal are that availment of Cenvat credit on photo copy of the Bill of Entry/Quadruplicate copy. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant drew my attention to the impugned order wherein the lower appellate authority has not given any finding why the credit was denied on quadruplicate copy of the bill of entry. However, it is also seen that the case law cited by the appellant were not considered by the lower appellate authority for denying Cenvat credit on photocopy of the Bill of Entry. 4. Considering the said lapses, I feel that the matter needs further examination and consideration by the lower appellate authority. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a speaking order considering the contentions raised by the appellant in support of their claim. Needless to say that an opportunity be given to the appellant to present their case before passing the o...
Commissioner of Customs (Ep) Mumbai Vs. M/S. Aroma International
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The Revenue has filed this appeal against the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondent. 2. Heard learned DR. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. The matter has been taken up for final disposal. 3. The learned DR submitted that in this case the value of the goods were redetermined at the rate of US $ 5500 PMT and on that amount the differential duty amount for imposing penalty was calculated by the Commissioner of Customs as Rs.6,17,354/- which is not correct, and the Commissioner has not disclosed how he has arrived at the quantum of redemption fine of Rs.1,85,206/- in the impugned order. Hence, the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority. 4. Considering the submission of the learned DR that the Commissioner has not given the quantification of the differential duty as the same has been imposed as penalty equivalent to differential duty and no quantification has been given for redemption fine, the matter needs quantificat...
Vasant Babanrao Palkandwar, Aged 52 Years, Vs. Vishuddha Vidyalaya, Ya ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
1.By this writ petition, the petitioner questions the judgment of School Tribunal dated 27.08.2008 by which appeal filed by him vide Appeal No. 29 of 2008 came to be dismissed and Appeal No. 46 of 2008 filed by Respondent No. 3 came to be allowed. The dispute pertains to determination of seniority inter se between the petitioner and Respondent No.3.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Assistant Teacher on 01.09.1982 and at that time his qualifications were S.S.C. D.Ed. (2 years course). He improved his qualification and obtained Graduation B.A. on 14.01.1985. He improved his training qualification and obtained B.Ed. Degree in 1987. As against this, Respondent No. 3 joined same school on 10.10.1985 and at that time he was B.Sc., M.Sc. & B.Ed.3. The petitioner was working as Assistant Head Master and by order dated 08.05.2008, he was sought to be reverted as a Assistant Teacher. He challenged that reversion in Appeal No. 29 of 2008. Respondent No. 3 filed Appeal No. 46 of 2008 ...
Syed. Mushtaque Ahmad S/O Syed. Ismail and ors. Vs. Syed Ashique Ali K ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 01/04/2011 passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Achalpur, by which order the application filed by the respondent for appointment of Court Commissioner came to be allowed and the Taluka Inspector of Land Records was appointed as Court Commissioner to report regarding location and possession of the suit site 'A,B,C,D' and whether there is any construction going on.3) Facts in brief can be stated thus -The petitioners herein are the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.19/2002 wherein the main substantive relief claimed is the declaration of the said sale deed dated 12/01/2000 as null and void and for its cancellation. The petitioners-plaintiffs have also prayed that they be put in possession of suit site A,B,C,D shown in amended plaint map, after demolishing the whole constru...
Great Pacific Navigation (Holdings) Corporation Limited Vs. M.V. Tongl ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
1. This it the defendant's Notice of Motion to have an order of arrest dated 9th December, 2010, of the defendant-vessel, vacated and for an order directing the plaintiffs to pay damages towards losses suffered due to the wrongful arrest. I have not considered the claim for damages. The defendant is at liberty to raise the claim at the appropriate stage by a separate application.2. The suit was filed essentially for security in respect of the plaintiff's claim pending an arbitration between itself and Tongli Samoa Shipping Company Limited, Samoa (hereinafter referred to as "Tongli Samoa") and Tongli Shipping Company Limited, China (hereinafter referred to as "Tongli China"). The plaintiff has also sought a decree in the sum of US $56.06 million, which was enhanced by an amendment to US $72.59 million together with interest at 12% per annum. The decree, however, was sought without prejudice to the arbitration. This is clear from paragraph 73 of the plaint where it is clarified that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »