Mumbai Court January 2011 Judgments
Alankar Real Estate P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant are seeking waiver of pre-deposit of service tax confirmed against them under the category of commerce and Industrial Construction Services along with interest and various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. 2. After hearing both sides at length, we find that the stay as well as the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, we have taken up the stay application and appeal itself for disposal. 3. The appellant under an agreement with their client M/s Miltech Industries P.Ltd. who undertook the work of supervising, measurement and quality check and make payment on their behalf to their principal to supplier/contractors. We find that prima facie the activity undertaken by the appellant does not cover under the category of ‘Commercial and Indl. Const. Service.’ Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of disputed amounts, we have taken up the appeal for final disposal. 4. Further we find that in th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Muktabai W/O Kashinath Shitole and ors.Vs. Vaijinath S/O Gena Shi ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
:1. Heard Shri Milind Patil, learned Advocate, for the appellant and Shri M.M. Patil (Beedkar), learned Advocate for the Respondent. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. Plaintiff and Defendant.2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.1.1990 rendered by the learned District Judge, Osmanabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 246 of 1982, thereby allowing the said appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed on 30.9.1982 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Osmanabad, in Regular Civil Suit No.156 of 1978, and consequently, dismissing the said suit filed by the plaintiff.3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of survey No. 66/2 of village Singoli, Taluka and District Osmanabad, in all admeasuring 13 acre 4 guanthas. He obtained loan of Rs.4000/= from Maharashtra Land Development Bank, Osmanabad, by mortgaging the said survey No.66/2 with the said bank. It is further averred by the plaintiff he ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. M/S. Sagar thermit Corp. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
:-1 Heard finally.2 The Petitioners have challenged an Award dated 16 December 2005 passed by the Arbitrator appointed in a dispute arising out of a Contract Agreement for Works dated 17 December 1999, between the parties with regard to a rail contract work.3 The basic facts are:On 21.09.1999, the Respondents were awarded with a contract of work of Cutting and Cropping of Rails and Almino Termite welding of Rails by SKV process between Kurduwad - Pandharpur Guage -Conversion Project at a tendered cost of Rs.1,21,07,000/- with a condition of completion period of 5 months from the date of acceptance/award of the contract i.e. 21/09/1999 and accordingly the work was to be completed on or before 21/2/2000.4 On 31.01.2001 the work was completed by the Respondents after obtaining 5 extensions. The joint measurements were done in the presence of the contractor.5 On 20.08.2001 and 21.02.2003, the Respondents however had raised disputes/claims and pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 21.02...
Tag this Judgment!Angad S/O Rajendra Mane and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
:1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 12.02.1999 passed by the Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No. 110/1995, thereby convicting the appellant Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A, of the I. P. Code and further convicting the appellant No. 1 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-II of the I. P. Code.2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :Deceased Chabu was the daughter of the complainant Vinayak Argade r/o Katri, Tq. Tuljapur. Her marriage was performed with accused No. 1 Angad four years before the incident. She cohabited with him at village Gaudgaon, Tq. Osmanabad in the house of accused No. 1 Angad where the accused Nos. 2 to 6 were also residing. The accused No. 2 Rajendra and the accused No. 6 Malan are the parents of the accused No. 1 Angad, while the accused No. 3/Lahu, accused No. 4/Nandu and accused No. 5/Ankush are his brothers. The matrimony of the deceased Chabu was peaceful for initial 2V2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandur Moriani. Vs. Vinod GadA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
:1 The learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff states that summons for judgment has been served on 8th June, 2010 and there is no reply filed by the Defendant. The learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff has placed on record the original documents. The suit is for recovery of the price of goods sold and delivered. Reliance is placed on various invoices and delivery challans the originals of which have been produced on record.2 Notice of demand was issued by the advocate for the Plaintiff to the Defendant. There was a reply sent by the advocate for the Defendant in which it is contended that the goods were defective.3 As there is no reply filed, in view of the documents on record and clause (a) of sub-Rule 6 of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment.4 Interest is claimed at the rate of 18% per annum on the basis of the clause in the invoices. Considering the facts of the case, further interest deserves to be granted a...
Tag this Judgment!indur Kartar Chhugani. Vs. Ms. Priya Sunil Dutt.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
ORAL :1 Heard the Petitioner appearing in-person and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. This order disposes of the prayer made by the Petitioner for permission to examine two witnesses.2 The Petitioner has already examined himself and the 2nd witness Dr. Mrs. Ashwini Joshi in the list of witnesses. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent states that by filing an affidavit, the Respondent has raised an objection to examining the witness No.3 -Mr.Mahendra Warbhuvan and the witness No.6 - Mrs.Rekha I. Chhugani ( wife of the Petitioner). He has invited the attention of the Court to the affidavit dated 4th September, 2010. He pointed out that the objection is on the ground that when the evidence of the Petitioner appearing in-person was recorded on 20th April, 2010, witness No.6 - Mrs.Rekha I. Chhugani was present in the Court. He also pointed out that the 3rd witness - Mr.Mahendra Warbhuvan was admittedly present in the Court when the evidence of the Petitioner was ...
Tag this Judgment!Faijal Hamidkhan Noor Mohmad Shah Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
ORAL :1. The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 16.5.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.112 of 2004 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, i/d S.I. for three months.2. The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows:P.W.1 Dilip Arjun Pathare happens to be a jeep driver, resident of Ban Pimpri. He owns Commander Jeep No.MH-04-A-7141. P.W.1 Dilip, after his daily work came to Ban Pimpri at 7 p.m. near Shubham DhaBa. He was talking with P.W.4 Arun Mohan Pathare. P.W.6 Pandurang Pathare was sitting in his tea stall. One Hanumant Pathare and Pandurang Kakade were sitting on the bench. At about 7.15 p.m., one Tata sumo Jeep came. One Arjun Uttam Pathare emerged from the said jeep and assaulted P.W.1 Dilip by means of iron dagger locally called as "Sattur". He tried to catch...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Jagannath Trimbak Labade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
ORAL :1. Heard learned Counsel and learned A.P.P.The appeal is is admitted on 14 . 9. 1998 . The appellant questions conviction recorded for an offense under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC in Sessions Case No.297/1996, dt.31.8.1998, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon.2. The matrimonial relations of the accused applicant with deceased Mankarna getting married on 13.2.1996, six months prior to the incident dt.8.7.199 6 are not in controversy. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the dying declarations of the victim Mankarna ( Exhs. 22 and 27) in unmistakable terms, she has informed the events as an accidental burns that she has suffered, it should have been believed. The learned Judge erred in holding that death of Mankarna is a case of suicide and then holding appellant/accused abated commission of suicide. Learned Judge erred in not believing evidence of Kakasaheb Ahilaji Pawar, PW No.1, a neighbour who did not support the prosecution. The story and the evi...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Mehmood Shaikh Bibhan Vs. the Authorized Officer, Narayan G. Me ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
ORAL ORDER :1.The Petitioner has challenged the legality of a notice issued on 16 June 2009 by the First Respondent under Section 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002. By the notice the Petitioner has been informed by the bank of having taken symbolic possession of a residential flat. The Petitioner claims to have purchased the flat from the Third Respondent at and for a consideration of Rs.15 lacs on 7 November 2007. The case of the Petitioner is that on 4 January 2008 the Petitioner allowed the Third Respondent to reside in the flat by executing a Leave and Licence Agreement for a period of eleven months which was extended for an equivalent period on 5 January 2009. The Petitioner alleges that he took possession on 5 November 2009. On 19 November 2009 the Third Respondent is alleged to have executed an affidavit cum declaration stating that though he had sold the flat to the Petitioner he had not transferred ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Pushpabai Marotrao Paraskar and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2007 passed by 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Case No. 160 of 2006 whereby appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, is as under :Victim Maya was married to Mahendra, son of appellant no. 1 and brother of appellant no. 2. Maya was ill-treated by appellants on various counts like, she has failed bring money from her parents; she had failed to conceive e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »