Mumbai Court April 2012 Judgments
Rajkumar Shivhare Vs Union of India .
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
1. This Appeal arises from an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange on an application for waiver of pre-deposit made to the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999. The Appeal before this Court arises under Section 35 on a question of law. Though several questions have been framed in the Memo of Appeal, counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant states that question (e) as raised would be comprehensive enough to govern the submissions which are urged in the Appeal. That question reads as follows :"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in dismissing the stay Petition for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty in FEMA appeal without properly appreciating the strong prima facie case, violation of principle of natural justice and undue hardship despite bringing out the same on the basis of documents filed along with stay petition in Appeal."2. The Appeal is admitted on the aforesaid question a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, R ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. Common issue is involved, therefore the appeals are taken up together. The appellant filed these appeals against the impugned orders passed by the adjudicating authority. 3. We find that the duty stands confirmed against the appellant in both the appeals for the period 5th/6th September 2004 when the warehousing facility was withdrawn vide Notification No. 17/2004-CE (NT) dt. 4.9.2004. In one of the appeal the benefit of Notification No.64/95-CE dt. 16.3.1995 has not been extended to the warehoused goods cleared to Indian Nevy in respect of the stock held as on 5th/6th September 2004. In the second appeal the benefit of Notification No. 22/2003-CE dt. 31.3.2003 have not been extended to the warehoused goods cleared to 100% EOU in respect of the stock on the date of the warehousing facility is withdrawn. 4. We find that these issues are decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant’s own case in Appeal No. E/405/2006 Final Order dt. 21.8.2007 an...
Tag this Judgment!Nilam P. Putta Vs. Maharashtra University of Health.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
1. Heard Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner secured admission in BHMS faculty in Respondent No.2 institution from reserved category claiming to be Naikpod caste, Scheduled Tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner was scrutinised by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and came to be invalidated on 29.7.2008. Against that decision, the petitioner preferred writ petition in this Court which was dismissed on 4.5.2009. The petitioner then carried the matter in Appeal before the Apex Court which was also dismissed on 8.11.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition challenging the order passed by Respondent No.1 Vice-Chancellor to refrain from admitting the petitioner as she was not eligible to appear for the current year examination as also the final year examination of BHMS course. That decision was challenged by way of Writ Petition No.4365 of 2011 which came to be withdrawn on 13.6.2011 with liberty to make representation to the competent authority....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Castrol India Ltd. Vs. Castrol ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
S.S. Kang 1. Revenue filed the application for early hearing of the stay applications. Since the stay applications are listed for hearing today, the present application for early hearing is dismissed as infructuous. 2. Applicants filed applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues in respect of the appeals filed against the two impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. As the common issue is involved, therefore, all the stay applications are being taken up together for disposal. 4. Applicants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely lubricating oil classifiable under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and lubricating preparations classifiable under Chapters 34 and 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The assessments for the period in dispute were provisional and the adjudicating authority finalized the assessments and demand of differential duty is confirmed. The earlier orders passed by the adjudicating authority were chal...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Balasaheb Nagmode and ors Vs. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
A. M. KHANWILKAR, And S. S. SHINDE, JJ.1) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking two fold relief, firstly, to issue the writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate direction for quashing and setting aside the transfer orders of the Petitioners herein, effected by Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 and secondly, to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate direction or order, directing Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to look into the matter and withhold the grant payable to Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for making discrimination for violating the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (terms and conditions) Act and also using power of the transfer by making discrimination on communal basis.The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that, the transfer order of the Petitioners are clearly in violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Priv...
Tag this Judgment!Radhika George and ors Vs. 6 Tanishq Builders.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.1 Heard by consent of the parties in view of order of Division Bench dated 11 January 2012 thereby directed to hear and dispose of the Writ Petition with restricted prayer clauses which were further amended by order dated 14 March 2012 in Chamber Summons No. 49 of 2012.2 The prayer clauses are as under:-"b) Ordering and declaring of the scheme in respect of the redevelopment scheme of 7806.17 sq. mtrs. is illegal, null and void;(c) A writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court calling for the records of the case in respect of the impugned order dated 11/11/2011 annexed as Exhibit A to the Petition and after perusing the same and considering the legality and propriety hereof to quash and set aside the same;(e) A writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court calling for the additional records, papers and proceedings in respect of the redevelopment scheme of the said land ...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Industries and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import) Nhava ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellants have filed these appeals along with stay applications. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant, namely, Shri Ashwini B Singhal has also filed an appeal against the impugned order by way of appeal No. C/268/2012 wherein the matter has been adjourned for 26/06/2012. 3. As the captioned appeal and the appeal filed by Shri Ashwini B Singhal are arising out of the same order, therefore, we called the appeal of Shri Ashwini B Singhal for listing today itself along with appeal of B.N. Industries. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to place the appeal No. C/268/2012 before us today itself for disposal.4. Without going into the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is a case of under valuation of imported goods and during the adjudication they have paid an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs and the same may be treated as sufficient in compliance to the provisions of Sections 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.&...
Tag this Judgment!Malerkotla Steel Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. Lalchang Garg Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan The appeals and stay applications are directed against order-in-original No.10/2011/C dated 17.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows. The main appellant, M/s. Malerkotla Steel Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd., is manufacturer of iron and steel rerolled products. Intelligence was received that the appellant was indulging in clandestine production and removal of the said goods. Accordingly, a search was conducted in the factory premises of the appellant on 30.1.2009 by the Central Excise authorities at Nagpur. The stock verification conducted revealed shortage of raw materials to the extent of 106.990 MT and excess stock of finished goods which were not accounted for in the production register, to the extent of 49.051 MT. Searches were conducted in the combined office premises of M/s. Trimurti Ispat Ltd., Kalmeshwar, M/s. Malerkotla Steel Rolling Mill Pvt. L...
Tag this Judgment!Fatima M. Shaikh Vs. the Dean Department of Maxillofacial Oral Surgery ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service of the treating doctors of Nair Hospital Dental College and B.Y.L. Nair Ch. Hospital, both hospitals run by Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC in short); when Late Ms.Kamrunnisa M. Shaikh, daughter of complainant-Mrs.Fatimabi M. Shaikh, was given anesthesia while undergoing operation for Osteotomy surgery. The operating surgeon at that time was Dr.J.N. Khanna and Anesthetist was Dr.Bhagatwala assisted Dr.L.Savla and Dr.P. Ramaswamiu. Late Kamrunnisa Shaikh, a female, aged 30 years at that time. The consumer complaint is filed as per the record against opponent No.1-The Dean, Department of Maxillofacial Oral Surgery of Nair Hospital Dental College and against opponent No.2-The Dean, BY.L. Nair Ch. Hospital. 2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that this consumer complaint stood dismissed as per the order dated 19/06/1997 and an appeal was preferred before the National Cons...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Mehta Jwellers Through Its Partner Vimlchand Devraj Mehata Vs. Nat ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
Narendra Kawde, Member 1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, a partnership firm dealing in business of gold and silver ornaments alleging deficiency in service against the opponent Insurance Company as the insurance claim of the complainant under the insurance policy arising due to burglary that took place in the insured shop premises of the complainant has been repudiated. Salient facts giving arise to file this complaint are summarized as under:- 2. The complainant has subscribed to insurance policy bearing No.27106/46/06/3700000140 for sum assured of Rs.31,00,000/- issued by the opponent Insurance Company providing insurance cover to the ornaments. It was noticed on 26/06/2007 that the shop premises were burgled and gold ornaments of Rs.31,00,000/- were stolen away. Immediately, FIR was lodged in the concerned police station and information was given to the opponent Insurance Company about the incident. The concerned police station has closed the case as no trace coul...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »