Mumbai Court August 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. Sanwal Coal Carriers, Through Its Proprietor,vs. Western Coalfiel ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. The challenge in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India is to order styled as interim award dated 25/3/2010 by arbitrator in dispute between petition and respondent. Dispute arose out of contract for driving payloaders and tippers for loading coal into trucks/tippers from ground stock and its transportation. By consent of parties it has been referred to sole arbitrator Mr. B. R. Harne on 20/7/2009 under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to as "the Act" hereafter). It is not necessary to go into controversy leading to stoppage or termination of that contract. For present purposes, it is necessary only to note the case of petitioner that Chief General Manager of respondent on 20/3/2006 issued a notice to petitioner to resume work within 15 days and before that on 11/3/2006 work was given to another transporter who started it. It is the case of petitioner that report of committee constituted by respondent regarding imposition of penalty...
Smt.Mumtajbi Wd/O Sheikh Amir Aged About 50 Years, Vs. Rahimtulla S/O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
1.This Second Appeal is filed by the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.1646 /1989 which was dismissed by learned 20th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur on 10.2.1994. The said suit which was for specific performance of contract was dismissed by the trial Court. The unsuccessful plaintiff had challenged dismissal of suit by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 202/1994 which was heard and decided by learned 8th Additional District Judge, Nagpur who, by impugned judgment and order allowed the appeal and decreed the suit by setting aside the judgment and order by the trial Court.2. The appeal was admitted on substantial question of law as to whether the first Appellate Court committed an error in holding that the agreement dated 15.8.1986 has been duly proved.3. It is submitted in support of the appeal that the respsondent Rahimatullah had committed murder of the appellant's husband and for that offence he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Under the circumstances...
Gachake Anil Raghunath, Trunal Nivrutti Wagh, and ors. Vs. the Electio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
1] These are applications by the Returned Candidate invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) and seeking dismissal of the Election Petition in limine. Alternatively, it is prayed that the below mentioned paragraphs in each of these Election Petitions be struck off in exercise of the powers conferred upon this Court vide order VI Rule 16 of the CPC:- E.P. No.11 / 09 (para No.14 (a) to 14(s) and 14(t) to 14(w); E.P.No.13/ 09 [para 3(i)] E.P. No.14/09 [para 2((i)] E.P.No.15/09 [para 3(i)]2] Application No.7 of 2010 is preferred in Election Petition No.11 of 2009 i.e. By Mr.Kamat Gurudas Vasant, who is respondent No.4 and he states that he contested the elections to the Loksabha in General Elections held in the year 2009 from Mumbai North West Constituency. The elections were declared on 2nd April 2009 and the programme notified for various stages of the electoral process stated that the same would come into effect on ...
Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co.Ltd. Vs. Mehar Karan Singh.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
1. The Defendant was the whole time Director of the Plaintiff-Company appointed under the Agreement of employment dated 22.8.2005, Exhibit-A to the Plaint, for the period 24.7.2004 to 23.7.2009. Under the said agreement, he inter alia agreed not to divulge or disclose confidential information of any nature to any person. The parties agreed that such information shall be the property of the Company. The relevant clauses of the agreement read thus:-10.Mr.Singh shall not, except in the proper course of his duties during the continuance of his employment with the Company or any time thereafter divulge or disclose to any persons whomsoever or make use whatsoever for his own purpose or for any purpose of any information knowledge obtained by him during his employment as to the business and/or affairs of the Company and/or the know-how, technology, methods, machines, compositions, knowledge, information and other data, trade secrets, formulate and process of manufacturing of various products ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Vs. Castrol India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. This appeal of the Revenue is against the Commissioner’s order dropping the demand of duty to the tune of Rs 1.67 crores in favour of the respondent and also dropping penalty to the same extent proposed in the relevant show-cause notice. The matter arises before us pursuant to Hon’ble High Court’s remand order dated 17.12.2008 in Central Excise Appeal No. 262/06. The Commissioner’s order was mainly against the Revenue and partly against the assessee (respondent). There were penalties imposed on the company and its Corporate Head, Indirect Taxation, by the Commissioner under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 209A of the said Rules, respectively. Against these penalties, the company and its Corporate Head, Indirect Taxation, preferred appeals to this Tribunal, which were allowed as per Order dated 11.6.04 on the ground that the demand of duty on the company had been dropped by the Commissioner. When the Revenue’s appeal...
Shri Abdul Sattar Moulvi Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Csi Airport, Mum ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko There are two applications before us, both filed by the appellant, one for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal and the other for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. We take up the first application. 2. In this application, it is submitted that the appeal is delayed by 30 days. As per the memorandum of appeal originally filed, the date of communication of the impugned order is 28.02.2008, which has been subsequently amended to be 22.08.2008 (fresh memorandum of appeal in CA-3 form with the amended date has been filed by the appellant). The appeal was filed on 15.12.2008 with the professed delay of 30 days reckoned with reference to 22.08.2008. For condonation of this delay, the appellant has submitted that he was mentally disturbed and was in continuous stress and hence unable to pursue the appellate remedy. He has submitted that, as there was nothing to be gained by him in delaying the appeal, the delay of 30 days’ should be condoned. An affidav...
M/S. Agarwal International . Vs. State of Maharashtra, Frisco Internat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. By order dated 17.3.2010, this Court had directed notice to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and had also directed that the notice shall indicate that the petition may be finally disposed of at the admission stage. The notice was served and the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 appeared and sought time. On 27.4.2010, on request by the learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4, the matter was adjourned as a last chance. Thereafter also, on 15.6.2010, the matter was again adjourned on the request of the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Today, none appears for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.3. The petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Sec. 120-B IPC. It was contention of the petitioner in the complaint that respondents. 2 to 4 had agreed to deliver certain goods to the petitioner on making payment of Rs....
Ryan Sea Air Agent Mehta and Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i), Mu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants namely M/s. Ryan Sea Air Agent and M/s Mehta and Mehta (CHA) have filed these appeals against the imposition of penalties of Rs.25,000/- each by the lower authority. 2. The facts of the case are that the intelligence gathered by CIU of Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai in January 2003 led to detection of a number of imports made at ACC, Mumbai between September 2002 and January 2003 through manual bills of entry by grossly under invoicing and vaguely describing the consumer items such as mobile batteries, VCD players, car stereo, video casettes etc. by avoiding filing of these bills of entry under the EDI System on false / incorrect grounds and in complete contravention of Public Notice No.8/99 dated 04.02.99, Public Notice No. 26/99 dated 23.06.99, Public Notice No. 1/2002 dated 03.01.2002 and Public Notice No. 38/2002 dated 03.09.2002 and CHALR, 2004. It was found that both the appellants have filed the manual bills of entry on behalf of one of the importer...
M/S. K Prashant Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export) Mumba ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant (exporter) has filed this appeal against the denial of duty drawback of their supplementary claims by the Commissioner of Customs holding that their claims are barred by limitation under Rule 15 of the Draw Back Rules, 1995. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants (exporters) have filed the shipping bills against their export consignments regularly along with invoice. After processing the shipping bills into EDI data the duty drawback claims were sanctioned and the same was credited into the appellants account. In the yearly audit of the appellants firm by the auditors, it was found that in case of eight impugned shipping bills short/part payment in some of their Drawbck Claims has been sanctioned. Accordingly, they filed a supplementary claim of Draw Back in Form Annexure III under Rule 15 of Custom and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. The Commissioner has rejected their supplementary claim on the ground that these claims are barred...
A.B. Mauri India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against an order passed by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise in adjudication of show-cause notice dated 08/04/2005 wherein Central Excise duty of over Rs. 5 crores along with education cess was demanded from the assessee in respect of certain excisable goods (broadly called 'bakery improvers') cleared from their factory without payment of duty during the period from July 2003 to March 2005 and equal amount of penalty was also proposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty to a reduced extent against the assessee and imposed on them equal amount of penalty. The demand of duty as raised in the show-cause notice and confirmed in the impugned order is consequential to classification of the said goods under SH 2108.99 of the CETA schedule coupled with its valuation under Section 4A of the Act. The assessee had ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »