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.
Kisan Sayaji Shelke, Vs. Madhukar Mohan Deshpande, Ananda Krishna Maha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Challenge in this petition is to judgement and order rendered by learned Incharge President of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad (M.R.T.) in exercise of appellate jurisdiction (Case No. 27/A92-J). By that judgement, the appeal preferred by the respondents has been allowed and the application filed by the petitioner for eviction under section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, "the HT&AL; Act") came to be rejected.2. Indisputably, father of the petitioner, namely, Sayaji Shelke was the protected tenant in respect of agricultural land Survey No. 52, admeasuring 9 acres 18 gunthas, situated at village Gokul under Bhokardan Tahsil. It is also an admitted fact that father of the respondent No. 1, namely, deceased Mohan alias Mohiniraj Deshpande was the landlord. The name of deceased Sayaji Shelke was recorded in the revenue record vide the relevant orders. A final declaration under the HT&AL; Act was made in his favour. He was found in possess...
Subhash Narayan Koli @ Saindane Age33 Years, Jitendra Narayan Koli @ S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. By the present criminal application, u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants had initially prayed to quash and set aside the FIR in CR No.56/2010 registered with Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal, vide prayer clause "B". It appears that during the pendecy of the application, the application suffered amendment and by prayer clause No.BB, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR and further proceedings of CR No.19/2006 registered with Shani Peth Police Station, Jalgaon.2. Record shows that vide order dated 08.12.2006, Rule came to be issued along with ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause "BBB".3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by learned APP. Also perused the charge sheets submitted in connection with CR No.56/2006 registered with Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal so also in connection with CR No.19/2006 registered with Shani Peth Police Station, Jalgaon. 4. In this application, in response to the notice, State has filed an a...
Smt.Tulsabai Wd/O Ramkrishna Avatade Aged About 51 Years, Vs. Smt. Raj ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1.This Second Appeal was admitted on 24th September, 2009 on the following substantial question of law :"Whether the counterclaim for specific performance of contract could be said to be barred by limitation?"2. This Appeal is at the instance of original defendant no.1 challenging the judgment and order dated 17th July, 2008 passed by learned District Judge1 at Pandharakwada in Regular Civil Appeal No.77/2003 which was dismissed. The said appeal stems from judgment and decree passed on 3rd September, 2001 by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in Special Civil Suit No. 95/1991.3. The plaintiff had instituted the suit for possession, damages and costs of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing Gat No. 53 ( Old S.No. 34) admeasuring 4H 31R situated at village Khadaki, Taluqa: Maregaon, Dist. Yavatmal. The suit land was originally allotted in favour of one Shri Rajkumar Punyani, husband of the plaintiff some in 196768, by the Government....
Vishwanath S/O Kondaji Pote. Vs. Raosaheb S/O Asaram Sawde and anr
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1 The appellant (original complainant) has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 22.3.2007, rd rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna in S.T.C. No. 1326 of 2006 acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and prayed for quashment thereof.2 In nut shell, the complainant's case is that there were cordial/friendly relations between the complainant and the accused and at the request of the accused, the complainant gave hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/ to the accused on 7.6.2005 for relieving the tractor and also towards his financial difficulties. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused did not repay the said loan within the period of one year in spite of making repeated requests. However, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 0489970 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Tembhurni on 4.4.2006 for Rs.2,50,000/. The complainant presented the said cheque for encas...
M/S Diamond Jubilee Stores Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import), Mumba ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko In this appeal the appellant is aggrieved by enhancement of value ordered by the Commissioner in respect of the goods (Polypropylene Carpets) imported by them in November, 1997. The appellant had imported three consignments of Polypropylene Carpets (190 x 280 cms size) of Madina Super Brand, of Saudi Arabian origin, supplied by M/s Mohd. Humaid Al Qama Trading Est. and filed three Bills of Entry dated 19.11.1997 declaring the price of the goods US$ 7 (CIF) per piece. Upon first check examination, the description, size and quantity of the goods were found to be as declared in the relevant invoice. Subsequently, the department gathered information relating to the price of the goods from the office of the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE. The statement of the importer was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. On the basis of the results of investigation, a show-cause notice dated 16.1.1998 was issued to the importer proposing to reject the declared v...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur M/S I.G. Petro Chemicals Ltd. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko After hearing both sides, we find that the short question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the benefit of Notification No. 1/95-CE (Entry No. 7) dated 4.1.1995 was admissible to the assessee in respect of Furnace Oil which was used, during the material period, in their Boilers to generate steam, which in turn, was used in the process of manufacture of their final product (viz. Phthatic Anhydride). On a similar set of facts, this Tribunal granted the benefit of the Notification to the assessee in the case of Jayant Agro Organics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara - 2003 (157) ELT 684 (Tri-Mum) and the Civil Appeal filed by the department against the said decision was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara Vs. Jayant Agro Organics Ltd. - 2009 (238) ELT A24 (SC). 2. The issue stands settled in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal’s decision upheld by the Hon’ble Supr...
M/S Mercedes-benz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko This matter arises in pursuance of the Hon’ble High Court’s remand order in Writ Petition No. 1614 of 2010, dated 17.3.2010. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles, which are marketed through dealers. During the period of dispute, the appellant, in agreements entered into with their dealers, sold their cars ex-factory. It was the liability of the buyers to take delivery of the vehicles at the factory gate. However, apparently for the sake of convenience of the dealers, the appellant undertook the transportation of the vehicles to the dealers’ premises through transporters and the cost of transportation incurred by the appellant was to be made good by the buyers. Contextually, it may also be noted that the transportation of the vehicles was undertaken in terms of collateral agreements between the appellant and the transporters. In the invoice issued to the dealer, the appellant showed freight separately, which was paid by the...
Dr.Sudhakar Namdeorao Gumble, Vs. Tate of Maharashtra, the Commissione ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8.1.2010 in Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2009 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, (for short Tribunal) dropping contempt proceedings against the respondents after holding that the respondents have fully complied with the directions issued by the Tribunal in Original Application No. 70 of 2008 decided on 8.4.2008, the present writ petition has been filed.3. In support of writ petition, Ms.Sharwari Deshpande learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that in O.A. No. 70 of 2008 decided on 8.4.2008 the Tribunal at Mumbai Bench held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion as he was found fit on 5.1.2000 and was therefore entitled to the deemed date namely 5.1.2000, i.e. the date of his selection for promotion. According to her, this judgment and order passed by the Tribunal having become final and co...
Bank of Maharashtra Officers' Association,2 Reserve Bank of India, And ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1 .The issue involved in the instant Petition is as regards the nomination of a Officer Director on the Board of Directors of the Respondent No.3Bank. The Petitioner, which is a Trade Union representating employees of the officers cadre in the Respondent No.3Bank, has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs : A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the Scheme promulgated by the Government of India vide Notification dt. 17.10.2000 in respect of the verification of membership of officers for appointment of non workman employee Director is ultra vires the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous) scheme, 1970 and 1980 hence null and void.B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the name of Mandamus or another appropriate Writ, direction or Order under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and direct the First Respondent Union of India to frame a fresh Sch...
Gyanchand S/O Parmanand Jain, Aged About 65 Years, Virendrakumar S/O R ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1.The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4926 of 2006 are the legal heirs of original plaintiff (landlord), who filed Regular Civil Suit No. 261 of 2002 before Small Causes Court at Nagpur, seeking eviction of the respondent Wamanrao under Section 16(1)(g) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as Rent Act) i.e. because of bonafide need. The suit was decreed by Small Causes Court and the respondent Wamanrao then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 562 of 2005 before Adhoc Additional District Judge at Nagpur. Vide judgment and order dated 22.08.2006, that appeal has been allowed. The appellate Court has found that though the landlord proved bonafide need, the finding reached upon consideration of aspect of comparative hardship required it not to grant a decree for eviction. This appellate judgment is questioned by landlords. The respondent Wamanrao has filed Writ Petition No. 3303 of 2008 contending that the finding of bonafide need upheld by the appellate Court is err...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »