Mumbai Court April 2012 Judgments
Subhash So Ashruba Pote, Age 49 ... Vs. Occupation Service, Ro. Rahuri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
1. Heard.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing and heard finally.The factual aspect of this case, in short, can be stated as under :-3. The petitioner admittedly was legally wedded husband of respondent No.1. Their marriage took place in 1987. They admittedly stayed as husband and wife together till 1991, during which time they were blessed with a girl child. In 1991, respondent No.1 and her daughter left the petitioner, and thereafter, an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was moved by them against the petitioner. This application was allowed in 1993. Till 1997, the petitioner was paying maintenance to respondent No.1 and her daughter. In 1997, the petitioner filed divorce-petition against respondent No.1 and in 1998 same was granted exparte. The wife did not pay any attention to this proceeding probably because she was not aware that divorce was granted against her. In 2006, rather belatedly she challenged th...
Tag this Judgment!Eknath So Punjaji Nawale Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
1. Since the issues involved in these petitions are more or less common, we are deciding the same by a common judgment. We have taken up the petitions for final disposal.2. In substance, the challenge in these petitions is to the acquisition proceedings initiated on the basis of the notification dated 1st December, 2010, issued under Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1966 ) read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1894 ).3. The main submissions have been made in Writ Petition No. 6872 of 2011 by Shri V.D.Sapkal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1371 of 2012 has generally adopted the submissions made by learned counsel Shri Sapkal.4. For the sake of convenience, we are making a reference to the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 6872 of 2011.FACTS OF THE CASE5. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Devanshi Impex P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal along with a stay application. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the impugned demands, we proceed to take up the appeal for disposal. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant imported “Barium Carbonate” by classifying the same under Chapter Heading No.2836000 and filed a Bill of Entry accordingly. On scrutiny of the documents, the adjudicating authority observed that the goods are an organic chemical, can be used for insecticide purpose and as they are covered under the insecticide Act, 1968, the appellant is required to register with Central Insecticide Board (CIB). As the appellant has not obtained registration under the Insecticide Act, 1968, the impugned goods were held liable for confiscation, and, accordingly the same were confiscated absolutely and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been im...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Copper Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of Rs 3,51,507/-, interest and penalty of equal amount. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit on the duty paid on capital goods. Appellants availed credit in respect of capital goods which are required for maintenance of the plant and machinery. Appellant availed on such capital goods and subsequently after a lapse of time the capital goods which were kept as stores were written off as the same were not put to use for more than five years. A Show Cause Notice was issued asking the appellants to reverse the credit in respect of the capital goods which were written off. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. After the adjudication order was passed, the a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa Vs. Norman Azavedo
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Ashok Jindal The Revenue filed this appeal along with a stay application and an application for Condonation of Delay in filing the appeal. 2. There is a delay of seven days in filing the appeal on the ground that the Commissioner of Customs, Goa and Commissioner of Central Excise, Kohlapur could not meet for considering the matter as one of the Commissioners was on leave. Considering the reason stated for delay in filing the appeal is satisfactory, we allow the application for Condonation of Delay. 3. We have considered that it would be appropriate to decide the stay application as well as the appeal at this stage itself. Accordingly, we allow the stay petition unconditionally and take up the appeal as well as the stay application together for disposal. 4. The sole ground for the appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. We have examined the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded his finding that ‘no c...
Tag this Judgment!Victory Steefab Vs. Cce and Customs, Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal along with a stay application on the ground that their appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance of the provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that the demand has been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that the appellant are engaged in the activity of supply of manpower. 3. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of at this stage itself. Therefore, after granting waiver of the pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for final disposal. 4. Contention of the appellant is that they were not supplying the man power, in fact they are working with their principle manufacturer on contract basis and the remuneration of work executed by them as per the work awarded to them not as per persons supplied. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagawan Shriram Ahirrao Vs the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
1. By consent of parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.3. This writ petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged the propriety of the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below rejecting the petitioner's application under section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking return of muddemal gold and silver articles. The petitioner is the complainant in a case which is registered as Crime No.5 of 2007 on 10.01.2007 for offences punishable under sections 454, 457, 380, 411, 413, 414 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against unknown persons. The petitioner alleged that his jewelery shop was burgled between night of 10th and 11th January, 2007. He lodged complaint immediately after the incident. The police investigated into the crime and arrested about six accused and recovered from the accused gold ingots weighing 100 gm and silver ingots weighing 6 kg. It is prosecution case that these muddemal art...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavana W/O Anil thengdi Vs. 2) 3rd Joint Civil Judge.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.2) This writ petition is directed against the order below Exh. 118, dated 20/2/2012 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur whereby the said application came to be allowed.3) I have perused the impugned order and seen the facts of the case. The respondent no.1/plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 733/1996 against the original defendant Sharad whose legal heirs are the petitioners before this Court, for specific performance of contract on the ground that the deceased had orally agreed to sell his house on Plot No. 4, Nazul Layout of Gazetted Officers' Colony, Civil Lines, Nagpur for a total consideration of Rs.12 lacs and in view of the oral contract of 29/10/1994, he had paid Rs.15,000/- towards earnest amount and thus, there was a valid agreement of sale of the suit house. The plaintiff and defendant were the neighbours residing in the same Colony and in para (23) of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Gulshandev Chopra Vs. Vimi Vinod Chopra .
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
1. The petitioner husband has challenged the order of the Judge, Family Court No.5, Mumbai dated 31st March, 2011 modifying the order of the access of the 3 children of the petitioner by which the learned Judge has cancelled the access of the petitioner to the 2 minor daughters and continued the access of the petitioner to his minor son.2. The parties have had a very acrimonious dispute. In fact, the application upon which the impugned order is passed is Exhibit 203 showing the number of applications taken out by both the parties in the Family Court litigation.3. The daughters of the petitioner have been stated to be 16 and 15 years of age in March, 2011. There are, therefore, almost nearing the age of majority at present. In fact, their ages were shown to be 16 and 15 years even in October, 2010 when in another application the age came to be observed.4. The learned Judge has concluded that in view of the uninfluenciable age of the 2 daughters, they are capable of taking their own deci...
Tag this Judgment!All R/at Dheklewadi, Taluka Mohol Vs. All R/O. Dhekalewadi.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
1. The appellants-original accused nos.1-7 have moved this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31st January, 1990 in Sessions Case No. 100/1990 thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 147 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer one month's R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer further four days R.I. and for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for two months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for 8 days and for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for six months and for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 149 of the IPC and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for four days and for the offence punishable under Section 506 r/w wi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »