Mumbai Court June 2011 Judgments
Union of India Vs. M/S. Sheetal Exports and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2011
1. This petition by the Union of India under Article 226 of the Constitution, is to challenge an order passed by the revisional authority in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner had initially rejected rebate claims preferred by the First Respondent in the amount of Rs. 13.57 lakhs. In appeal, the Commissioner remanded the proceedings back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, after complying with the principles of natural justice. The First Respondent challenged that order of remand before the revisional authority. By the order impugned in these proceedings, the revisional authority has come to the conclusion that the First Respondent is entitled to claim rebate. The revisional application has been allowed. The Union of India has impugned that order. 2. The First Respondent is a merchant exporter. The manufacturer of the goods in question was Radha Dyeing and Printing Mills. The manufacturer claimed Cenvat ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sheetal W/O. Hitesh Thawkar Vs. Hitesh S/O. Vijay Thawkar and anr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-28-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard Mr.A.A.Sonak, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.Masood Shareef, Adv. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 3rd September, 2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nagpur with consequential prayer to restore the order dt.18.6.2010 passed below Exh.16 in Criminal Application No.541 of 2010 by 20th Joint Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C.Nagpur. It appears that the present applicant had filed proceedings against her husband and mother-in-law under Section 12 r/w. Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2005"). Along with the main application, the applicant had also moved another application for grant of interim relief with averments that the applicant along with her husband (respon...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Prabhakarrao Chondekar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2011
1. Rule. Taken up for final hearing by consent at the stage of admission. Heard submissions at the Bar. The Petitioners have prayed for to quash and set aside the charge-sheet dated 30/12/2010, in Criminal Case No.114 of 2010, filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Kelapur, Taluka Kelapur, District Yavatmal (copy annexed with the petitions). The Petitioners were charge-sheeted for alleged offences punishable under Section 306 and 284 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Pandharkawada Police Station in District Yavatmal reported that on 22/02/2010, Deputy Conservator of Forest Shri. Gopalrao Kisanrao Kale at about 7.00 to 9.30 a.m., at his official residence had consumed poison and committed suicide. The oral report was lodged by one Shri. Shamu Bhadu Rathod and accidental death case was registered as A D Case No. 16 of 2010 under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. An alleged suicide note was seized mentioning thus:- The suicide note dated 22/02/2010 attributed that...
Tag this Judgment!Siddhant Ice Creams Pvt. Ltd. and 2 ors. Vs. M/S. Thanco Enterprises a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2011
1. With the consent of the parties, the Notice of Motion is heard finally. 2. The defendants have filed this Notice of Motion, purportedly under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside, discharge and/or vary an order dated 15th April, 2001, passed by a learned single Judge in Notice of Motion No.1148 of 2011 in the above suit. The learned Judge restrained the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs registered mark, a predominant part whereof includes the word "NATURAL", infringing the plaintiffs copyright in the works which are exhibited to the plaint and from passing off their goods and products as those of the plaintiffs. The learned Judge also restrained the defendants from transferring the registration of the impugned domain names. 3. The defendants initially filed Appeal (Lodging) No.281 of 2011 against the said order and judgment. By an order dated 3rd May, 2011, the Division Bench noted that the defendants sought to rely on certain documents whic...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vijay Gangaram Kamble
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
1. Rule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent waives service of Rule. 2. This is an application at the instance of the State for condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. There is a delay of about 154 days. The ground mentioned in the application is that some time was consumed in taking the opinion of the Government Counsel. The writ petition filed by the applicant challenging the award of the Labour Court was dismissed by the learned single Judge by order dated 8th/21st September, 2010. The certified copy of the said order, in fact, was also applied for after a considerable period of time. The certified copy of the said order was ready on 28 th October, 2010. No attempts were made to file the appeal within the period of limitation. In fact, legal opinion was sought by the applicant on 15th December, 2010 and that too after the limitation period was over. The Government Counsel gave his opinion on 5th January, 2011. After receiving the opinion from the Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax. Vs. M/S.Dev Enterprises Limited.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
This appeal by the Commissioner of Sales Tax has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in construing the Schedule Entry C-74 to mean footwear predominantly made of plastic and not as footwear exclusively/entirely made of plastic; and (ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the goods of the respondent namely "Escort 111 SYN Black" sold through invoice dated 25-08/2005" though admittedly not wholly made of plastic would be covered by the Schedule Entry C-74. 2. The Respondent engages in the business of the import and sale of footwear at Pune and is registered under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. An application was submitted on 25 December 2007 to the Commissioner for a determination under Section 56 of the Act, accompanied by a Tax Invoice1 for a product described as Escort 111 SYN Black. The contention of...
Tag this Judgment!Sajid Abdul Sattar Urankar and 9 ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and 9 o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2011
1 The ten Petitioners before the Court have challenged in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution a scheme for redevelopment under DCR 33(7) which has been sanctioned by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). The Petitioners are occupants of a cessed structure on CS 1101, 29-31A Khandia Street of Byculla Division in the "E" Ward of Mumbai. MHADA has granted its NOC on 4 November 2009 for redevelopment. MHADA has since permitted a composite redevelopment of two adjacent properties, CS 1101 and CS 1102 under DCR 33(7). There were seventeen tenants/occupants on CS 1101, while there were eighty eight tenants/occupants of CS 1102. All the occupants of CS 1102 vacated their structures, while out of the seventeen occupants of CS 1101, seven have vacated. Only the ten Petitioners remain. In the meantime, development has commenced and construction has proceeded upto the fifteenth floor. The AGP has informed the Court that MHADA permitted the amalgamation of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax-iii Vs. Loknete Balasaheb Desai S.S.K. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. Heard. Admit on the following question of law :- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that under Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the excise duty element cannot be added to the value of unsold sugar lying in stock on the last day of the accounting year " 2. By consent, appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. The assessment year involved is AY 2001-02. 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar. In the assessment year in question, the assessing officer held that the excise duty on sugar manufactured but not sold and lying in closing stock was a liability incurred by the assessee under Section 145A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and has to be considered for disallowance under section 43B of the Act. 5. On appeal filed by the assessee, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the assessing officer. According to CIT(A), the liability to pay excise duty is incu...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Lucky S/O Hastimal Chandak Vs. Shri Govardhandas Ramgopal Chandak ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 13/1/2011, by which order the application filed by the petitioner invoking Section 10 of the C.P.Code came to be rejected. 3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in Reg.Civil Suit No.8/2007 filed by him for partition and possession of the ancestral property. The petitioner is the brother of the respondent. After the said suit came to be filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.1 herein filed Reg.Civil Suit No.7 of 2009 claiming a declaration in respect of the same property. Admittedly, the respondent is a defendant in the suit filed by the petitioner wherein the respondent no.1 has raised the claim that he is the exclusive owner of the property in question. Since the parties to both the suits are same and since the property in question is common, in my view, the issues arising in bot...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Laxman Chalke Vs. Kolhapur Central Prison
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1 This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 04/06/2001 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.108 of 2000 by which the Appellant Keshav Laxman Chalke was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine. 2 The Appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code along with two others i.e. original Accused Nos.2 and 3 who were acquitted by the trial Court. All the accused were related to each other. Acquitted original Accused No.2 Yashwant Laxman Chalke is the real brother of present Appellant and acquitted original Accused No.3 Phulabai Yaswant Chalke is the wife of original Accused No.2 Yashwant. Incident in question took place on 10/04/2000. The Appellant was residing along with his deceased wife Taibai and three sons. The prosecution alleges that on 09/04/2000 in the evening deceased Taibai was sitting o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »