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.
Sqn. Ldr. P.J.B. Khurana (Retd.) and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is seeking review of the order passed by this Court dated 09.09.2009 dismissing Crl.M.A.4180/2002 which was filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only on the ground that while disposing of the said matter this Court has observed that no special circumstance were brought to the notice of the Court to show as to why this petition could be entertained which was in the nature of second revision petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after having filed a revision petition before the ASJ against the order framing the charges which stood dismissed vide order of the ASJ details whereof stands mentioned in para 4 of the order under review dated 09.09.2009.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the FIR lodged against the petitioner is based upon the complaint made by Sh.Atul Aggarwal who made allegations in the complaint dated 16.06.1998 that he was forced to deliver a cheque of `20,000/- of current date and other post d...
Ratu @ Ratnakar Shamrao Kale,and ors. Vs.The State of MaharashrA. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard Mrs.Jadhav, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Pednekar, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.2. Criminal Appeal No.936 of 2003 is directed against the judgement and order dated 15.7.2003 passed by the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case no.257/2001 whereby the appellants came to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for one month. Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2004 has been filed by the State challenging the acquittal of original accused no.4 which has been admitted and ordered to be heard along with Criminal Appeal No.936 of 2003. As both these appeals arise out of the same incident, they were head together and are being disposed of by this common judgement.3. The prosecution case in a nut-shell is as follows:- The complainant Dadarao Machindra Shinde (P.W.1) ...
Shankar Maruti Bamne Vs. State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent State.2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 21st March 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for one month.3. The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows :- On 4th December 2001 at about 6 a.m. Ranganath Karande (deceased) had gone to his agricultural field for watering the crops. He had asked his wife to come to agricultural filed after a while. When Ranganath was watering the crops in his field, the appellant had come there with the axe and asked Ranganath why was he drawing water from the well on that day since it was his turn to draw water from the well which was used by both of them. It is the ca...
Shiwanand Bhagwanrao Kulkarni Age 48 Years, Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
1. Heard Mr. Anturkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 11th February, 2010 by which he was communicated the decision of the Disciplinary Committee/Authority to impose the minor penalty of censure under Rule 6(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (for short D. & A. Rules).2. The petitioner joined as a Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 20th July, 1995 and he continues to occupy the the same post as of now. While he was posted at Jamner in Jalgaon District, the Principal District Judge received a complaint dated 22nd June, 2007 signed by eight Advocates from Jamner Bar and one of the complainants i.e. Shri Rajendra Baburao Patil, advocate was the President of the Advocates Bar Association. The grievances raised against the petitioner in the said complaint were (a) he used to work for half an ho...
M/S. G.T. Iron and Steel Works, Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Boar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15th June, 2002, passed by the Civil Judge, S.D., Kalyan, whereby the suit filed by the Respondents/original plaintiffs came to be decreed with costs. By the impugned judgment and decree the Appellants/original defendants were ordered to pay to the Respondents/original plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 18,40,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filling of the suit till realization.2. The facts of the case need to be briefly stated :The suit was filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, which was an autonomous statutory Board constituted under the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 for the purpose of generating and supplying electricity for various purposes throughout the State of Maharashtra. During the course of hearing of the present Appeal, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company (MSEDCL) was brought on record, having replaced the Board pursuant to the transfer sc...
Shankar Maruti Bamne. Vs. State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent State.2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 21st March 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for one month.3. The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows :- On 4th December 2001 at about 6 a.m. Ranganath Karande (deceased) had gone to his agricultural field for watering the crops. He had asked his wife to come to agricultural filed after a while. When Ranganath was watering the crops in his field, the appellant had come there with the axe and asked Ranganath why was he drawing water from the well on that day since it was his turn to draw water from the well which was used by both of them. It is the ca...
Arun Gupta Vs. the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
S.S. Kang, Vice President 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the penalty of Rs.2,50,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant along with other co-noticees, who are penalized in the present proceedings, entered into a conspiracy and prepared certain documents showing export of goods and bank realization certificate, which was submitted to DGFT’s office and on the basis of those forged documents this DEPB licences were obtained and the licences were sold, which were used for import of goods duty free. The co-noticees made detailed statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, stating the role of the appellant. On the basis of the statement and other evidence on records the adjudicating authority imposed penalty on the appellant and other co-noticees. The only contention of the appellant is that the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, whose statements were re...
M/S Maneesh Exports (Eou) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal Heard both sides. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were granted permission to sub-contract packing and repacking of goods to M/s. Svizera Labs Ltd. The permission was extended from time to time. However, request for further extension by the appellants was rejected on the ground that M/s. Svizera Labs Ltd. have neither renewed their LOP nor the Customs Bonding Licence and hence the status of M/s. Svizera Labs Ltd. was neither of an EOU nor a DTA. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant is before me. 3. During the course of arguments, the learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that, in fact, while dealing with the application for grant of permission, it is admitted that there was no LOP with the appellant but later-on M/s. Svizera Labs Ltd. obtained the letter of permission from DGFT, with retrospective effect. Hence, the matter may be remanded to the original adjudicat...
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. Lipi Boilers Indust ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
Per: Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 1. Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order. The only issued involved in this case is that whether the value of bought out item is to be added to the value of the boiler manufactured by the respondent. The contention of the revenue is that the respondent manufactured and supplied the boiler. The boiler was cleared in CKD condition on payment of duty. Certain items were purchased from the market and supplied directly at the place of installation. The case of the revenue is that the value of bought out items is to be added to the assessable value of the boiler. The revenue relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. Thermax Bobcock and Wilcox Ltd., reported in 2005 (182) ELT 336 (Tri-Mumbai). The respondent relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Silson India Pvt Ltd., Vs., CCE, Thane, reported in 2006 (194) ELT 37 (Tri-Mumbai). The Ld. Counsel submits that the value of bought ou...
Kdl Biuotech Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2010
Per: Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 1. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand is confirmed from the period December 2000 to September 2005 by invoking extended period on the ground of suppression of facts and penalty imposed on under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Bhubaneshwar Vs. IFGL Refractories Ltd., reported in 2005 (186) ELT 529 (SC), the appellants are not contesting the appeal on merits. The appellants are contesting the demand only on the issue of time bar. 2. The contention of the appellant is that appellants are selling the goods to certain buyers who are having the advance license. The customers surrendering their advance licences in favour of the appellants. The contention is that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court this is additional consideration for sale of the goods. The contention is that prior t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »