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 Nath Cold Retreads Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) In this appeal, the appellants are seeking setting aside of the impugned order, wherein the penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 have been confirmed against the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging that the appellants have undervalued the taxable service and have made short payment of Service Tax amounting to Rs.3,70,492/- for the period 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2007. It was alleged that the appellants were providing the service of ‘Retreading of Tyres’ covered under the category of ‘Management, Maintenance or Repair Service’ and paying Service Tax only on the 30% of the Labour charges element charged to the customer instead of gross bill amount by excluding the cost of materials used in the service from taxable value by wrongly availing the exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003. The said Notification is a...
Bhujang N Shetty and Others Vs. Anna Louisw Cooperative Housing Societ ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal has been filed by org. O.P. who have been simply directed by the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint No.214/2001decided on 13/05/2010 that they should execute Deed of Conveyance in favour of complainant/Society as per agreement within period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, failing which penalty has been imposed on the developer from the date of expiry of period. Developer is also directed to pay Rs.500/- as cost to the Society. Aggrieved by this order, developer/builder has filed this appeal. The facts need not be stated because dispute is pertaining to Conveyance Deed not executed by the Developer in favour of the Society and that one member of the Society individually had filed consumer complaint demanding Deed of Conveyance from the builder and that matter went right upto the National Commission and in the National Commission in ...
M/S.Sparrow Oilz Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dinkarrao K. Patil and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
Per Mrs.S.P. Lale, Honble Member By this common judgement, we are disposing of these four appeals since these appeals involved identical facts and common question of law. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 22/02/2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Sangli in consumer complaint Nos.97 to 100/2006 whereby Forum below directed O.P.No.1 to pay Rs.12 Lakhs to each of the complainant within 30 days. Being aggrieved by the said order, O.P.No.1 has filed present appeals. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :- The complainants had filed consumer complaints against M/s.Sparrow Oilz Pvt. Ltd. who is in the business of manufacturing and selling of spray oil and O.P.No.2 who is dealer of the spray oil. According to the complainants, they had purchased from O.P.No.2 Sparrow 888 Plus a brand of Organic Agricultural and Horticultural Spray Oil manufactured by O.P.No.1. The complainants had sprayed said oil on 21/01/2005 on their crops of grapes in proportio...
The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited.Vs. Madan S. Jha and anr. Age; ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1.This Civil Revision Application by Applicant-Bank is directed against Order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, rejecting the Applicant s Application at Exhibit 17 in Special Civil Suit No.512 of 2007 before him.2. By an Order dated 25th June, 2008 this Civil Revision Application was directed to be heard finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly, it was heard on 11th June, 2010 and is being disposed of by this Judgment.3. Facts which are material for deciding this Civil Revision Application are as under :-In the year October, 1999, Ravindran Selvaraj Respondent No.2 herein had taken a loan from the Maratha Mandir Sahakari Bank Limited and mortgaged property bearing Flat No.401, 4th floor, E Wing, Shanti Niketan Complex, Mira Bhayandar Road, Mira Road(E), District Thane 401 107 by depositing the title deeds of the same for securing repayment of the said loan. The mortgage was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar. The Applicant acquired the said Maratha Ma...
Masina Hospital.Vs. Mrs. Sunanda Hari Kadam,and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1. By these appeals, the appellant-Management challenges the common order dated 4th May, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 3108 of 2002 and 1132 of 2003.2. The relevant facts are-. One Hari Ganpat Kadam was an employee of the appellant Management/hospital. He was appointed as Ward Boy since 1967 and had put in twenty years of service. The said worker was also a Union leader and was actively participating in the union activities. The appellant charge-sheeted the petitioner for charge of assaulting co- workers. He was suspended from service. After replies were filed, an inquiry was conducted and ultimately he was dismissed from service on 10-10-1987. After his dismissal, said worker filed a complaint bearing Complaint (ULP) No. 283 of 1987 before the Labour Court under Item 1, Schedule IV of the MURTU & PULP Act. In part I award, a finding was recorded by the Labour Court that the inquiry was not fair and proper and gave the management an opportu...
Deepak Chaturaji Tabhane Aged 50 Years,vs. Smt. Sunanda Wd/O Laxman Ta ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1. The instant Second Appeal is initiated at the instance of original plaintiff, challenging the judgment and order dated 24.9.2008 passed by learned District Judge10, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 51/ 2006, whereby the judgment and order passed on 21.10.2009 by learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 941/2003 was set aside. Hereinafter parties will be referred to by their original status as in cause title of the suit.2. The Appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent of learned Advocates appearing for respective parties and heard forthwith at the stage of admission itself.3. Facts as briefly mentioned are : The plaintiff is in occupation of shop block situated at Plot No.162, Ashok Nagar, Nagpur, where he carried on his business of General Stores, selling daily need articles, including cosmetics, etc. The defendants are the landlords. They had disconnected electrical energy to the tenements on 28.2.1997 as submeter of the plaintiff was install...
Shri P.R. Shinde,and ors.Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for a declaration, that the promotions given to respondent nos.5 to 12 are illegal, ultra vires the Constitution and they should be reverted back to their respective posts. The petitioners have further sought a declaration, that the guidelines dated 6th August 1990, issued by the Additional Registrar, High Court, Bombay, are illegal. A further relief is sought, that amendment to Paragraph 625 of the Civil Manual, 1986, is illegal and, therefore, liable to be set aside.2. The petitioners are working as Junior / Senior Clerk in the Judicial District of Jalgaon. The petitioners have passed Higher Standard Departmental Examination (For short, "HSDE"). According to the petitioners, the respondent nos.5 to 12 have been promoted as per amendment to paragraph 625 of the Civil Manual. It is the case of the petitioners, that though these respondents have not passed HSDE, they have been promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent. It...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - V Vs. Capital Controls India ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: In these appeals filed by the Revenue, the substantive question arising for consideration is whether the goods cleared by the assessee namely, M/s. Capital Controls India (P) Ltd. under the brand name 'Advance' during the period from April 1998 to June 2000 are chargeable to duty of excise without SSI benefit. The assessee claimed the benefit of Notifications 8/98-CE dated 02/06/1998, 8/99-CE dated 28/02/1999 and 8/2000-CE dated 01/03/2000 under the SSI scheme. Under para 5 of the first notification, SSI benefit was not admissible to specified goods cleared under a brand name / trade mark owned by another person who was not eligible for such benefit. Para 4 of each of the other two notifications created an identical bar against SSI benefit in respect of goods affixed with another person's brand name. After investigations into the clearances made by the assessee during the material period, the department issued a show-cause notice alleging that the goods cleared under ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - V Vs. Real Slotted Angles Co
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the limited prayer of the appellant is to enhance the quantum of penalty determined by the lower appellate authority under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act to be imposed on the respondent and also to restore the penalty on the respondent under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On a perusal of the records, we note that the department had framed a case of clandestine removal of excisable goods (angles and panels), against the respondent on the basis of what appeared from the results of interception of a vehicle (tempo) loaded with such goods. In adjudication of the relevant show-cause notice, the original authority found that the respondent had suppressed clearance value of such goods to the extent of Rs. 88,51,494/- for the period 1998-99. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority confirmed demand of duty of over Rs. 8.27 lakhs against the party by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to sub-se...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›