Mumbai Court September 2011 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.
Jawahar Premraj Mutha Vs. Ramesh Premraj Mutha and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the District Court, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 197 of 2006 dated 20-08-2008 and judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge,Senior Division, Ahmednagar in Civil Misc. Application NO. 265 of 1999 dated 05-06-2006. 2. The respondents herein filed application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act and after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, by reasoned order, the application filed by the respondents came to be allowed on 05-06-2006. Clause (ii) of the operative order reads thus : "(ii) Issue succession certificate in the names of applicants and respondents entitling them to succeed an amount of share certificates of The Hindustan Liver Company Limited as designated in Schedule (A) on payment of requisite cour...
Jagdish @ Sagar Hari Choudhary Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2011
Top of Form 1. By consent, taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order passed by the 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, at Mumbai dated 4th April 2009 in Miscellaneous Application No.58 of 2009 in Sessions Case No.91 of 1998. The petition is also seeking directions against the Sessions Court to reconsider the petitioner's claim of juvenility based on school leaving certificate, which is annexed as Exhibit "E" to this petition. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed formal application before the Sessions Court to extend him the benefit of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000. That application has been rejected by the Sessions Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 4th April 2009. In the said order, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner had not filed any document to indicate his birth date. The Sessions Court then procee...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vulcan Association and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on 26 July, 2011. Thereafter, further written th submissions have been filed by the Advocate for the Respondents. 2. On 14 August, 2008, this Court directed that the appeal th shall be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. With a view of appreciate the submissions, it is necessary to make a brief reference to the facts of the case. The Respondent Nos.1 to 10 are the original Plaintiffs and the Appellant is the Defendant No.1. The suit was filed by the Plaintiffs for permanent injunction. The case made out by the Plaintiffs in the plaint is that the Plaintiff No.1 is an association of tenants of the office premises situated at Vulcan Insurance Building, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 and the Plaintiff Nos.2 to 10 are the members of the Association. It is contended that the Plaintiffs are the tenants and the autho...
AmIn Merchant of Bombay Vs. the Chairman, Central Board of Excise.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER. DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) 1. During financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Petitioner imported eight consignments of goods falling under Tariff Heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff namely "Compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages". The Customs authorities provisionally assessed the goods imported and subjected to them to a prescribed rate of duty of Rs.300 per liter or 400% whichever is higher specified in respect of Sub-heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff for 1993-1994 and 1994-95. The Petitioner claims to have deposited the amount of duty provisionally assessed on the assessable value declared in the eight bills of entry. The Petitioner cleared the goods for home consumption during financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95. Between 1994 and 2001 the Petitioner addressed several letters interalia to the Central Board of Excise and Customs and to the Tariff Research Unit (TRU) of the Union Ministry of Finance. The grievance of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›