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.
Tata Communications Limited. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. The Defendant's Notice of Motion is for determining the preliminary issue regarding inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The application is shown to be taken out under Order 14 Rules 1 & 2 r.w. Section 9A and 151 of the C.P The written statement is not filed. Hence Order 14 cannot be. invoked. No interim application is taken out by the Plaintiff. Hence Section 9A cannot be invoked. However the issue of jurisdiction is required to be tried since it is the Defendant's case that the Civil Court's inherent jurisdiction is barred under Section 15 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 (Telecom Act).2. In essence what would have to be determined is whether this Court has jurisdiction to proceed with and try this Suit. If the Court's inherent jurisdiction is barred it would be in the interest of both the parties that the Suit be filed in the Court having competent jurisdiction rather than the Suit be simplicitor kept on the files of this Court until after the written stateme...
M/S. Colour Chem Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) By these appeals the appellant is challenging the penalties imposed on them under Rule 173Q read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rule. 2. In Appeal No. E/1514/05 the penalty is confirmed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and Under Rule 13 of the Cenvat credit Rules 2001. Earlier vide Order No. A/252-257/WZB/06/C-IV SMC this Tribunal allowed the appeals on the premise that the appellant have reversed the credit on finding out the mistake and following the decision in the case of CCE Vs. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. reported in 2004 (168) ELT 466 (Tri.LB) wherein it was held that if the duty has been paid before the issuance of the show cause notice no penalty is warranted under Section 11AC. The said order was challenged by the department before the Hon’ble High court of Bombay in Central Excise Appeal No.E/191/2006 on the ground that the decision of Machino Montell (I) Ltd. (supra) has been reversed by the Panjab and Hariyana Hi...
Hemnil Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) By this appeal the appellant is challenging imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The relevant portion of the show cause notice which is reproduced are as under:- “The Preventive officers of Division had visited the factory of the assessee on 19/07/2005. On going through the records of the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee had availed credit on capital goods to the tune of Rs.2,84,486/- even after their finished products was not dutiable in view of Boards Circular No. 811/08/2005-CX dated 2/03/2005. Wherein, it was held that the process of cutting of HR/CR coils into sheets or slitting of sheets into streeps does not amount to manufacture. On being pointed out the assessee has paid the amount of Rs. 284486/- vide PLA entry No. 16 dated 25/07/2005 against the Cenvat Credit which was wrongly taken and utilized by them. They also inform the same vide their letter dated 25/07/05 to the Department. ...
M/S. Besquare Packaging Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) By this appeal the appellant is challenging imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The relevant portion of the show cause notice which is reproduced are as under:- “The Preventive officers of Division had visited the factory of the assessee on 8/11/2005. On going through the records of the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee had used their common input for the manufacture of exempted final products and neither maintained separate account nor paid 10% of the total value of the final product. On being pointed out assessee accepted their mistakes and paid the Central Excise duty of Rs.95,706/- and informed to the department (Assessee’s PLA page No. 8/25-11-2005 is relied upon document copy enclosed). Now therefore, the assessee are hereby directed to Show Cause to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-V Div. having his office at Excise Bhavan near Akurdi railway station, Akurdi, Pu...
The New India Assurance Co Ltd and Others Vs. Sail Malhotra and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
Ms.Kalpana Trivedi, Advocate for the appellant. None present for the respondent though Advocate Mr.Patwardhan had on last time appeared and assured this Commission that he would file duly signed Vakalatnama. Upon hearing Advocate Ms.Kalpana Trivedi for the appellant, we are finding that she has sought condonation of delay of 68 days in filing appeal. She has mentioned some grounds in Para 2 of the condonation of delay application. Condonation of delay application was signed by Officer of the appellant/Insurance Company before the Notary Advocate. But, there is no separate affidavit filed in support of condonation of delay application. On this ground itself, application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant will have to be rejected. That apart, we are finding that in fact there is delay of 88 days as per calculation made by us in presence of Advocate Ms.Trivedi. When there is delay of 88 days, condonation of delay application mentioned that delay is of 68 days and it should b...
Union Bank of IndiA. and ors. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard the petition finally on merits at the stage of admission.2. The Petitioner is a body corporate registered under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970. The Respondent no. 3 is a partnership firm of which Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are partners. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are the guarantors to the credit facilitiesavailed by the Respondent no. 6 who has created mortgage so as to secure the debts of the Petitioner bank. Those properties are as follows:1. Factory land and building at Survey No. 157, Hissa No. 1, 2, 3 Village Nadhal, Taluka : Khalapur, District Raigad, Maharashtra State.2. Factory land and building at Survey No. 158, Hissa No. 1, Village Nadhal, Taluka : Khalapur, District : Raigad, Maharashtra State.3. Factory land and building at Survey No. 158, Hissa No. 2-B, Village Nadhal, Taluka : Khalapur, District : Raigad, Maharashtra State.4. Factory land and building at Survey No. 159, Hissa No. 1, Village Nadh...
New India Assurance Company Limited.Vs. Shrikirshna S/O Laxman Jirepur ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 5th July,1995 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in Claim Petition No. 41/1990, whereby the appellant along with other nonapplicants were held liable jointly and severally to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 19,500/ along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization.2. Facts in brief are that, on or about 16.1.1990 at 1.30 p.m., the claimant aged about 21 years, an agricultural labourer was travelling from Sarul to Talegaon Dashasar, Dist .Amravati by a heavy goods vehicle (truck) bearing Registration No. MCI 1043 insured with the appellant during the validity period from 17.2.1989 to 16.02.1990. The truck was owned by Pramod Babulal (Nonapplicant No.2) and was proceeding from Amravati via Talegaon and was loaded with metal. The Driver had stopped it near Kharda Fata and upon request, allowed the claimant to travel towards Talegaon. The nona...
Gulam HusaIn Khan Mustafa Khan, Age 42 Years, Vs. the State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.3. By the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for quashment of the order passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge1, Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No.177 of 2009 dated 14.12.2009, by releasing the cattle in favour of the petitioner and upholding the judgment passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 175/2009 dated 6.11.2009, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindkheda.FACTUAL MATRIX :4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is dealing in business of sale and purchase of animals since many years. Sindkheda Police Station has registered offence under CR No.18/2009 against the petitioner for offences under Sections 11 (d) (e) (f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Under Section 5 (1) 11 of Maharashtra Animal Preservation A...
Rukhana Associates.Vs. E-square Leisure Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1.Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Admit.3. By consent, the appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith.4. The appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 20th February, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, in Special Civil Suit No. 667 of 2004. The appellant/plaintiff filed the said suit for specific performance of actionable claim and declaration. The said suit has been dismissed by the trial Court by passing the following order :"1. The suit is dismissed.2. The Plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fees of Rs.1,00,225/ within a period of one month from the date of decree and in default of payment of Court fees by the plaintiff, precept be issued to the Collector to recover the deficit court fees from the plaintiff as arrears of land revenue.3. Decree be drawn accordingly."For the nature of the order that we propose to pass and considering the principal grievance made on behalf of the appellant, it is not necessary to advert to all the factual matrix...
King Rotors and Air Charter Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imp ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko We had directed the appellant in appeal No. C/363/09 to pre-deposit 50% of the duty amount within a period of 12 weeks and report compliance on 2.7.2010 vide order No. S/74 to 77/2010/CSTB/C-II dated 16.4.2010. There is no proof of pre-deposit on record, nor any request for extension of time or of modification of the said order, nor even representation for the party. The party also has not produced any stay order against the direction for pre-deposit. The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act....
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »