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.
Mr. Yadav Motiram Patil Age 58 Years, and ors.Vs. Mr. Rajiv G. Ghodank ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The present petitioners, who are the accused and the respondent No.1, who is the complainant in Regular Criminal Case No.614/2006 under Section 500 read with Sec. 34 IPC pending before the JMFC, 2nd Court, Thane, are residents of Om Arpan CHS Ltd., situated at Thane. Several members of the Society received anonymous letter by post making certain serious allegations against the character of the daughter of accused No.1 and threats. Members of the Society decided to approach the police for help and guidance. The respondent- complainant was also among those persons. PSI of Kapurbawadi Police Station registered a non-cognizable case under Section 507 IPC against the respondent No.1 complainant and also gave him a caution letter not to commit any cognizable offence, else action would be taken against him. No further action was taken by the police nor the accused No.1 or any other accused filed any complaint aga...
M/S. Madhav Structural Engineering Ltd. Vs. the Vice Chairman and Mana ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
1. This an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996, for the appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. There is no dispute between the parties as to the existence of the main agreement, including the clause therein pertaining to arbitration. The Applicants tender for certain construction work was accepted by the Respondent by a letter dated 2nd February, 2001. A work-order bwas issued on 2nd March, 2001. It is admitted that the parties were also governed by the General Conditions of the Contract.Clause 67 thereof pertains to the settlement of disputes. That the clause applies between the parties is admitted. The only contention on behalf of the Respondent is that the condition precedent to the invocation of the arbitration contained therein has not been fulfilled in the present application. Clause 67 reads as under :-67.0 Settlement of Dispute67.1 If a dispute of any kind whatsoever arises between the Engineer and the Contractor in connection with, or arising o...
Shri Damodar Laxman Navare, and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard.2. The Petitioners who claim to be the owners of certain lands in Thane District, by way of this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, principally challenge the letters dated 1122009 and 1862009 Exhibit L and M respectively. By letter dated 1122009, the authorities mentioned therein i.e. the Municipal Council, Kalyan and Dombivali Municipal Corporation, the SubRegistrar, Kalyan and the Chief Officer of the Ambernath Nagar Palika, were directed not to sanction the plans and to register the documents presented for registration by the Petitioners in respect of the flats constructed on the land owned by the Petitioners. By letter dated 1862009, the Petitioners were informed that they would have to pay an amount of Rs.56,97,263/ as penalty for extension of time that will be granted for completing the scheme sanctioned under Section 20.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts necessary to be...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane I Vs. the Tiger Steel Engineerin ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the common order passed by the lower appellate authority in three appeals filed by the assessee. In three separate orders passed by the original authority, in adjudication of equal number of show-cause notices, six refund claims of the assessee, which were filed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 had come to be rejected. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same were allowed by the appellate authority. Hence the present appeals of the Revenue. 2. The respondent was engaged, during the material period, in the manufacture of excisable goods namely Pre-fabricated Steel Buildings falling under Chapter 94 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They were also availing the benefit of CENVAT Credit on inputs under the relevant provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. During the period of dispute, which comprises six quarters specified in the Tab...
M/S. Umedica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Expor ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal By the impugned order the conversion of free Shipping Bill into DEEC Scheme was denied to the appellant following the terms of Circular No. 4/2004-Cus. dated 16.01.2004. 2. Shri Mayur Shroff, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant was intended to export goods under DEEC Scheme for which they have prepared proper invoices, packing list and ARE 1 but inadvertently while generating the Shipping Bill by the CHA the code of DEEC Scheme was not put properly and it was put as Code ‘00’ which is the Code for free Shipping Bill. Thereafter, the appellant sought the conversion of free Shipping Bill to DEEC Scheme which was denied by the lower authority on the basis of Circular No. 4/2004 dated 16.1.2004. The learned Advocate drew my attention to the Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 which reads as under:- “Amendment of documents. Save as otherwise provided in sections 30 and 41, the proper officer may, in his disc...
Manawat Plastics Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Custo ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. We are taking up this appeal pursuant to the Hon’ble High Court’s remand order dated 17.12.2008 in Customs Appeal No. 4/2007. The Hon’ble High Court, after considering the submission of the party that this Tribunal had not considered in detail Board’s circular No. 4/04-Cus dated 16.1.2004, remanded the case, by consent of both sides, to this Tribunal for de novo consideration and decision in accordance with law. 2. The appellant had filed a few Shipping Bills under the DEEC Scheme for export of ‘woven Polypropylene Bags/Fabrics with LDPE liner’. In the Shipping Bills, they had shown the full description of the goods as per the relevant invoices and also the quantity of the goods both in terms of number of bags and weight in kg. The Shipping Bills were accompanied by invoices and other export documents including ARE1s. The description, net weight etc of the goods were also furnished in the ARE1s. The proper officer of Customs, afte...
M/S. Reeds Export Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (Export) Acc, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant has claimed DEPB Credit at the rate of 8.2% in respect of the goods exported by them which they fabricated as Dyed/Printed Fabrics made from 100% Polyester Filament Yarn with Embroidery. After scrutiny of the records and physical examination of the goods, it was found that the goods to be made ups which would attract DEPB Credit at the rate of 6.6% at a lower rate. On this basis the Commissioner of Customs (Export) classified the goods as made ups and restrict the DEPB Credit to 6.6.%. In the impugned order the Commissioner held that export is liable for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, but he impose the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 113 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant are challenging the same imposition of penalty. 2. It is not in dispute that the Commissioner has found that appellant is liable for penalized under Section 114 but he did not impose any penalty under Section 114 of the Act, However,...
The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Smt.Mangal Uthamrao Kada ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
ORAL ORDER: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by org. O.P./Central Bank of India, Branch Girvi, Dist. Satara against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara. By allowing the complaint, Forum below directed the Bank to pay to the complainant Rs.1,77,500/- towards loan sanctioned in her favour and also to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost. As such org. O.P. has filed this appeal. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :- It was case of the respondent in the Forum below that she has mortgaged her land and had obtained loan of Rs.2 Lakhs from the O.P./Bank in the year 2005. According to her she had complied with the loan application and the Bank was supposed to release loan installment. She was initially given amount of Rs.22,500/- and out of said amount she had purchased one jersey cow for Rs.17,000/-. She had also made some construction of cowshed and totally she had spent Rs.31,500/-. Desp...
Commissioner of Income Tax20. Vs. King Metal Works.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1.The appeal by the Revenue raises the following substantial questions of law:"a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that, only the profit element of the sale of DEPB that is the amount in excess of sale proceeds over the face value is covered u/s. 28(iiid) and not the entire amount received on sale of DEPB entitlements represents profits chargeable under Section 28(iiid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961;b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was erred in holding that the entire amount received on sale of DEPB entitlement does not represent profit chargeable u/s.28(iiid) of the Act; c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was erred in holding that the profit referred to in Section 28(iiid) requires any artificial cost to be interpolated;d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was er...
Faijan Rizvan Khan Ages: 27 Years,and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. The appellants, who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 250 of 2003, have by this Appeal, challenged their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 489-C and 489-D read with Section 34 IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisnment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 489-C and R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 489-D awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, by the Judgment and order dated 18.2.2005.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.1.2003, PSI Maheshkumar Thakur of DCB CID, Mumbai Unit-XII got information that two persons would be coming near Hotel Dayanand, Dahisar Railway Station at about 1.00 p.m. with fake currency notes. He passed on this information to his senior and at about 12.30 p.m. PSI Maheshkumar Thakur and his staff went to Dayanand Hotel in a private vehicle. The vehicle was parked at some distance from the Hotel and they watched for the suspected persons. At about...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »