Mumbai Court September 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.
SachIn Gajanan Shetye. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant / appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State / respondents.2. Criminal application No. 1108 of 2010 is moved by the applicant for grant of bail. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the earlier application for grant of bail filed by the applicant was rejected by this Court vide Order dated 5th June 2008, which reads thus: "Counsel contends that the Applicant has been convicted solely based on making out ingredients of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. We have considered the judgment of the learned trial Court. P.W. 1 has deposed that the accused was at the site of the offence with the knife and was shouting along with the other accused to kill the deceased. The C.A. Report shows that the knife which was attached from the Applicant was stained with human blood so also human blood was found on his belt. Considering the above, in our opinion no case made out to grant bail. Hence application f...
The Commissioner of Central Excise. Vs. M/S Ultratech Cement, and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
1. Heard. Admit on the following questions of law : "(1) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in holding that the credit of Service Tax paid on Mobile Phone service is allowable especially when the Circular No. 59/8/2003 dated 20th June, 2003 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002, restricted such credit, and statutory provisions of Rule 16(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 stipulates that Board's Circular shall remain in force and valid for deciding the eligibility for Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Hon'ble CESTAT was right in holding that the Respondents were entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on Service Tax paid on mobile phones services in terms of Rule 3 read with Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 despite the Respondents not having established that the same was in relation to the business activity as envisaged under Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rul...
Smt.Aruna Vimalkumar Garg. and ors. Vs Dani Sadan Cooperative Housing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
1.This appeal arises out of an order of a Learned Single Judge, declining to grant impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Applicants to whom reliefs were declined, are in appeal.2. The suit has been instituted by the First Respondent against the Second and Third Respondents. The Plaintiffs are a Co operative Housing Society, registered under the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act 1960 and are lessees of a plot of land bearing C.S.No.1/280 of Malabar Hill Division. A building consisting of a ground floor and eight storeys has been constructed on the land. The Plaintiffs claim under an Indenture of Lease executed on 2 July 1963 in their favour in respect of C.S.No.1/280. The First Appellant is one of the lessors, who had executed the lease in favour of the Plaintiffs. An agreement to sell was executed by the owners in favour of the First Defendant on 3 March 1994 in respect of land admeasuring 772 sq.yards, equivalent to 645.45 sq.mtrs. This was f...
Sheikh Said Sheikh Najir. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally.2. Petitioner reported late by 585 days after availing furlough leave. By order dated 4th February, 1998, the Respondent No.2 had punished him for jail offence by forfeiture of remission at the rate of five days for each day s delay. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 674 of 2009.3. The challenge in Writ Petition No. 674 of 2009 was raised on the ground that the remission was for more than sixty days duration, however, the Respondent No.2, who was required under existing rules to take prior approval from Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, had failed to take the approval.4. This Court has allowed the Writ Petition No. 674/2009 by Judgment and Order dated 24th February, 2010 by setting aside order dated 4th February, 1998 passed by Superintendent, Central Jail, Amravati, and has remanded the case for a fresh decision according to law.5. After remand, a fresh Show-cause-Notice dated 9th March,...
Mrs. Chaya W/O. Balaji Barajdar, and anr. Vs. Balaji S/O. Ishwarrao Bi ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/non applicant.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of the parties.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that there is two years' child and the applicant will be put to inconvenience if she is asked to travel from Pune to Nanded, which is roughly 500 kms. Learned Counsel further submitted that the convenience of wife is to be looked into in case of transfer of the petition. Learned Counsel further submitted that if the petition is under Section 10 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in such case the petition can be transferred under Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, learned Counsel would submit that the application deserves to be allowed.4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent invited my attention to the reply and also additional documents filed on behalf of the respondent. He submitted that since the petition which ...
Deccan Co-operative Textile Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Centra ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
Per: S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellants have filed this application for condonation of delay of about five years and ten months. The adjudication order was passed on 30.5.2003 and the appeal is filed on 22.7.2009. 3. The contention of the applicants are that the applicant is registered under Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 and they came to know about the proceedings when they received the summons under the criminal proceedings by the Chairman on 11.5.2008 and thereafter after obtaining a certified copy of the adjudication order, the present appeal was filed. 4. The contention is that after receipt of information of passing this order on 11.5.2008, the Chairman was under medical treatment due to heart problem. The appeal was filed immediately thereafter. It is also submitted that the society was under liquidation and official liquidator was appointed on 26.11.2002 and thereafter the order appointing liquidator was set aside on 10.10.2003. The contention is tha...
Automark Inds. (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce and Custom, Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal Today the appeal is listed for admission. 2. I have gone through the appeal memo and the impugned order. The issue involved in this case is that the appellant has failed to submit the required documents before the Commissioner (Appeals) for verification to establish whether the appellant has discharged their duty that the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable or not. The appellant submits that they have submitted the required documents on 31.03.2010 but the Commissioner (A) has passed the order on 25.03.2010. Hence, these documents could not be verified by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Considering the fact that the impugned order itself says that the appellant has not produced the required documents, after admitting the appeal, I have decided to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage, with the consent of both sides. 5. As discussed above, the impugned order is passed without verifying the documents filed by the appellant in support of their claim. Therefore, ...
Slugs India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
Per: S.S. Kang 1. When the case was called, the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant submitted that the appellant had filed an appeal against the stay order on 30.7.2010 passed by this Tribunal before the Bombay High Court which is pending. We find that the Tribunal in its order dated 30.07.2010 directed the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs 2.00 lakhs against the demand of Rs 3,96,421/- and equal amount of penalty for hearing the appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order and compliance date was fixed on 27.9.2010. The appellant has not produced any order passed by the Hon ble High Court staying or setting aside the stay order dated 30.07.2010. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. However, the appellant shall have liberty to mention the matter after the decision of the Hon'ble High Court....
Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Vs. Shri Sunder Singh and Another, and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing laws delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system. (Ravinder Kaur vs. Ashok KumarRavinder Kaur vs. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904)2. Above observations made by Supreme Court are fully applicable in this case.3. As per facts of the present case, in 1975 Sh.Sunder Singh, decree holder (respondent No.1 herein) filed a suit for possession by way of mandatory injunction against Shri Murari Lal (since deceased). Decree holder claimed that he is owner of House No. 720-A situated in Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, which als...
Deepak Maruti Parte. Vs the State of MaharashtrA. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellantorig.accused No.1 against his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.2. Present appellant/accused No.1 along with two other coaccused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.172 of 2001. Finding the evidence of 21 prosecution witnesses worthy of acceptance and finding the supporting evidence by way of documents and recoveries against the present appellant, he was convicted for the offences charged, by impugned judgment and order dated 20.9.2003. Original accused Nos.2 & 3 were acquitted by the said impugned judgment and order finding the evidence deficient in order to establish the charges leveled against them.3. Present appellant/accused No.1 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/ for the offence punishable under Section 302 read wit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »