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.
Baliram S/O Ramaji Ghate, Aged About 78 Years, Vs. 1] State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1] The Question referred to this Full Bench for consideration is :"Whether the State can, in respect of the land though covered at the relevant time under the provisions of the ULC Act, but acquired subsequently under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, call upon the expropriated land holder to furnish an undertaking as contained in the communication dated 31.3.2006 that he will not seek enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act ?"2] The issue arose in a Writ Petition filed by the expropriated landholder challenging the condition sought to be imposed by the Government that compensation would be released and remitted to him under the award only if he gave an undertaking to the effect that he would not seek its enhancement under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.3] The facts which give rise to the question are as follows : The landholder holds land which was liable to be declared surplus under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (he...
Ashokkumar Satyanarayan Arya .Dundappa Balappa Nignur. Vs. the State o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1. Heard. Rule. The learned APP waives service. 2. Though the State has filed separate affidavit in reply in each petition, the grievance raised is common and mainly with regard to the eligibility for being admitted to the open prison if convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 392, 394 and 397 as well as 302 of the IPC and the sentence is directed to be suffered concurrently. Hence, these petitions are being decided by a common Judgment. 3. In Writ Petition No. 362 of 2010, the Petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years under Section 394 and for life under Section 302 of IPC. He has by now, completed actual sentence of 13 years and thus, the sentence of 7 years awarded for the offence punishable under Section 394 has already been undergone. 4. In Writ Petition No. 630 of 2010, the Petitioner has been sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years under Section 393 ...
Dr. PravIn Balisingh Raghuwanshi, aged about 40 years, Vs. State of Ma ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties.2. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Chancellor and his Excellency The Governor of Maharashtra, Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University and a Notification dated 08.05.2009 issued by Respondent No. 3 in consequence thereof. The Hon'ble Chancellor is Respondent No. 2 in the present matter. Respondent No. 2 has by the impugned order declared nomination of the petitioner to Board of Examinations under Section 31(3)(f) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Respondent No. 4 Vice Chancellor, invalid. The nomination has been done by invoking powers under Section 14(7) of the above Act by Respondent No. 4 Vice Chancellor.3. Respondent 6 Shri Santosh Madhavrao Thakre filed Writ Petition No. 4560 of 2005 before this Court challenging Notification ...
M/S. Inox India Ltd. and Others Commissioner of Customs(Export), Raiga ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal These are three appeals arising out of a common order and are therefore being decided together. The appellant M/s. Inox India Ltd. (the exporter) filed an appeal against the imposition of redemption fine and the appellants M/s. Universal Traffic Co. (the CHA) and M/s. Star Shipping Services (the Shipping Line) have filed appeals against the confirmation of penalties under Section 114(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that the exporter filed a shipping bill through his CHA for export of one package of cryogenic tank for liquefied gas. The said container was factory stuff and examined and sealed by the Central Excise Officers which was loaded on the vessel on 26.12.2007 and the said vessel sailed off on the same day without obtaining Let Export Order. The LEO was subsequently obtained on 27.12.2007. Show-cause notice was issued to the exporter, CHA and the shipping line alleging that the container was loaded on the vessel without shipping bill...
M/S. Wipro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal M/s. Wipro Ltd. - the appellants has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein the prayer for waiver of penalty was denied. The facts of the case are that the appellants had availed CENVAT credit in respect of GTA and legal and professional charges (paid to Chartered Engineer). These services related to the whole of the factory. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants engaged in the manufacture of soap, soap noodles and vanaspati and cleared soap and soap noodles against the payment of duty whereas vanaspati are exempted from the payment of duty. It was observed that the appellants had availed CENVAT credit on total amount of service tax paid by them on freight charges for inward transportation of raw material and outward transportation of all finished products cleared by them and on amount of legal and professional charges paid by them. As per Rule 6(2) of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004, ‘Where a manufacturer or provider of output service ava...
Mahindra Ugine Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are convinced of the need to dispose of this appeal summarily by way of remand. 2. The appellant had imported raw materials in March / April 1994 on the strength of four value-based advance licences obtained from M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (TISCO). 3. The imported materials were cleared duty-free under Customs Notification No. 203/1992 by the appellant. One of the conditions attached to the Notification was that no input-stage credit should have been taken in respect of the finished goods exported under the DEEC scheme, under Rule 56A or Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The department, on 29/01/1999, issued a show-cause notice on the ground that the above condition of the Notification had been violated. Eventually, this show-cause notice came to be adjudicated upon on 29/09/2000. The present appeal is directed against the Commissioner's order dated 29/09/2000. 4. The main ground of this appeal i...
Commissioner of Central Excise Pune - Ii Vs. Shree Warana Sahakari Dud ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: This case is being taken up pursuant to the remand order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 776 of 2007, dated 18/08/2008. 2. Finalising provisional assessments of the goods cleared by the assessee (respondent) from October 1992 to March 1998, the Deputy Commissioner passed order dated 16/01/2006, wherein short-payment of duty of Rs. 83,37,896.17 was found in respect of certain clearances and also excess-payment of duty of Rs. 13,82,22,628.76 was found in respect of other clearances and the latter amount was ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) on the ground of unjust enrichment. The order was passed under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Before the original authority, the assessee had sought adjustment of the short-paid duty against the excess-payment of duty and for refund of the net amount of duty paid in excess. This plea was rejected on the ground that the incidenc...
Rajendra S/O Ramkrishna Golait Aged About Major. Vs. Kalawati Wd/O Sit ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Heard.2. By means of this appeal, the appellantowner of the offending motor vehicle bearing Registration No: MH 31 H:8203 challenges the interim award which was passed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1966 ( in short "the said Act") on the ground that the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur ( in short "the Tribunal") wrongly exonerated the insurer Company from joint liability to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ on the basis of "no fault liability". Mr S.S.Deshpande, learned Advocate for the appellant invited my attention to copy of the insurance policy and pointed out that alleged offending motor vehicle MH31 H : 8203 was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, for the validity period covering the date of accident. According to him, the period of insurance was from 12.6.2007 to 17.6.2008 and the accident had occurred on 13.6.2007 at 1630 hours. That being so, prima facie, insurer and owner of the vehicle were jointly an...
State of Kerala, Vs. the Official Liquidator of Poysha Industrial Comp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. This is an application by the State of Kerala seeking an order directing the Official Liquidator to release the further adjudicated/readjudicated amount of Rs.68,55,885/ payable by the Company in liquidation.2. On 12.11.2003, the Applicant lodged a claim of Rs. 10,08,62,024/ towards the sales tax arrears with the Official Liquidator. On 29.04.2009, the Official Liquidator adjudicated the Applicant's claim in the sum of Rs.9,40,06,139/ and rejected the claim to the extent of Rs.68,55,885/ on the ground that it was not proved. The Applicants received the sum of Rs.9,40,06,139/ on 23.09.2009 from the Debts Recovery Tribunal without prejudice to their rights to adopt appropriate proceedings for the balance amount. The Official Liquidator, thereafter, on 08.03.2010 re adjudicated the Applicant's claim and admitted the same even to the extent of the said sum of Rs.68,55,885/ which was earlier rejected. By an order dated 19.03.2010, S.J.Kathawalla, J. directed the Official Liquidator to ma...
Shri Suresh Krishnaji Lakudkar, Aged : 52 Years,vs. State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1.On 24.06.2010, after hearing respective Counsel this Court noted that Writ Petition No. 4839 of 2009 is connected with the subject matter involved in Writ Petition No. 4474 of 2008, and that Writ Petition was already admitted for final hearing. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 4839/2009 was also directed to be listed for final hearing along with Writ Petition No. 4474/2008. Petitioner and respondents in both the matters are same and CLIII license issued to petitioner under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 forms the subject matter of both the Writ Petitions.2. In Writ Petition No. 4474/2008, prayer of petitioner is to quash and set aside the order dated 08.08.2008, whereby he was called upon to clear the arrears of license charges amounting to Rs. 5,25,000/. The petitioner also seeks quashing and setting aside of communication dated 18.03.2008 informing him that he has to clear those arrears for the years 2000 to 2004. The reminder issued on 30.05.2008 therefor is also que...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »