Mumbai Court April 2012 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.
Yusuf Khan Ashik Ali Khan Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. Considering that the petitions are being disposed at motion hearing, the notice to the respondent no.3 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 128 of 2012 is dispensed with.3. With the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission.4. These two petitions are filed by three different persons whose names are as follows:-[1] Yusuf Khan Asif Ali Khan, Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 126/12,[2] Irfan Khan Sharif Khan, Petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition No.128/12, and[3] Sharif Khan Asif Ali Khan, Petitioner No.2 in Writ Petition No. 128/12.5. Based on separate Istegashas, different notices styled under Section 110 (e) of Criminal Procedure Code were issued and served on the petitioners who were already in jail and were due to be released.6. The petitioners have prayed for reliefs, namely:-[a] Quashing of Istegashas.[b] Compensation for wrongful detention based on totally erroneous proceedings ...
Venkat Son of. Baburao Karle Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
1. These Revision Applications are tendered against judgment and award passed by the Extra Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur st on 1 August, 2011 in a group of Land Acquisition References.2. Agricultural lands belonging to the applicants - original claimants came to be acquired for irrigation project of village Kalkot, Tq. Chakur. After following procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award and determined amount of compensation payable to the claimants. The claimants received amount of compensation and proceeded to file individual Reference Applications claiming enhancement in amount of compensation. The claimants led evidence before the reference Court. The reference Court, on consideration of material placed before the Court, found that the claimants - applicants herein are not entitled to receive enhancement in amount of compensation. It was also found by the reference Court that the Reference Applications were p...
M/S. Satkartar Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen.Excise and Customs, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 38,09,949/-, interest and penalty. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are having rolling mills and are engaged in the manufacture of M.S.Round bars. The Revenue Officers visited the factory of the applicants and a trial run of 2 hours was conducted in the presence of the authorised signatory of the applicants and during the trail run it was found that for production of 40.11 Kgs, 1 KWH of electricity was consumed. On this basis, the demand is confirmed on the ground that the applicants are showing excess consumption of electricity and suppressing the production of goods and clearing the goods without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand alongwith interest and imposed penalty equal to duty. The applicants filed appeal alongwith application for waiver of dues before the Commissioner(Appeals) who directed the applicants to deposit th...
Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd Vs. Nishiland Park Limited.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
1. The Petitioner (original Respondent) has challenged Award dated 7 January 2010 passed by the sole Arbitrator, based upon the alleged agreement between the parties having arbitration clause. The operative part of the Award is as under :"i) The Respondent do pay to the Claimant a sum of Rs. 15 lakh on account of outstanding license fee with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum calculated from 1st February, 2004 till the date of the award;ii) The Respondent do pay to the Claimant a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crore only) by way of damages for failure of the Respondent to insert labels on 3 lakh bottles of Pepsi per year for a period of four years with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1st February 2004 till the date of the award.iii) The Respondent do pay to the Claimant the costs of the arbitration quantified at Rs.10,09,625/- as per the bill of cost submitted by the Claimant.iv) The Respondent do pay to the Claimant interest on the sum direct...
Sarvajanik Shikshan Sanstha Vs.Yehoshva Ashton.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
This appeal is directed against the order dated 22 nd July, 2011 of the learned single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 38 of 2011 in Suit No. 3231 of 2001. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge dismissed the Arbitration Petition which was filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenging the Award dated 23rd day of June, 2010, of the learned Sole Arbitrator. The learned single Judge found that the agreement in question was regarding transfer of the running school and since the School is already closed, it is impossible to grant decree of specific performance. The learned single Judge also found that considering the limited jurisdiction conferred under Section 34 of the Act, the order of the learned Arbitrator was not required to be interfered with and accordingly the learned single Judge rejected the Arbitration Petition which was filed under Section 34 of the Act challenging the Award of...
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for early hearing of the stay application. As the stay application is listed today, the application for early hearing is dismissed as infructuous. 2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.33,43,85,220/-, interest and penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The demand is for the period April 2004 to March 2009 and the show cause notice was issued on 7.5.2009. The case of the Revenue is that the applicant is liable to reverse the credit in respect of input services/inputs which are used for manufacture of exempted goods. The duty is computed in annexure B to the show cause notice. 3. The contention of the applicants is that the applicants are clearing naphtha to the fertilizer manufacturer and as per the provisions of Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the manufacturer is not required to reverse the credit in respect of inputs as well as the input servi...
Managing Director / General Manager M/S. T.V.S and Others Vs. Santosh ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 25.04.2007 passed in Consumer Complaint No.253/2005 (Santosh Jaywantrao Suryawanshi V/s. Managing Director/General Manager, MAI.TVS and Ors.) by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Form, District Kolhapur (the Forum in short). (2) The complaint refers to defect in TVS Victor Motor Cycle manufactured by TVS Motor Company Ltd. (Tamilnadu State), and it was purchased by Complainant Santosh Jaywantrao Suryawanshi (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) on 15.10.2002 bearing Registration No.MH-09-AF-7110. The Forum while allowing the complaint was pleased to direct Opponents to replace the vehicle or alternatively refund Rs. 46,984/- in addition to it, the Forum also directed the Opponents to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation towards mental torture to the Complainant in addition to it further pay costs of Rs. 500/- was awarded. Feeling aggrieved thereby the Opponents preferred this appeal. (3) The f...
Lawoo Atmaram Sawant and Another Vs. M/S. Jal Prabhat Builders, Throug ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member (1) These two appeals are disposed of by this common order since they are in the nature of cross appeals, involve common facts and the question of law. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 07.06.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.154/2007, Lawoo Atmaram Sawant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) V/s. M/s.Jalparbat Builders through Prop.Vishal Dutt (hereinafter referred to as the builder) by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Raigad at Alibag (the Fourm in short). (2) Undisputed facts are that the Complainant Lawoo Atmaram Sawant agreed to purchase Flat Nos.11 and 12 situated in Building No.1 in a building to be constructed by the builder at Village Nevali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad for a total consideration of Rs.5,37,700/-. This particular transaction is witnessed by an agreement dated 14.02.1996. Out of the total consideration agreed, Rs.2,70,275/- was towards flat no.11 while Rs.2,67,425/- was ...
Shree Constructions and Developers Vs. Kamal Oswal and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 16.05.2001 passed in Consumer Complaint No.289/2000, (Mrs.Kamal Rikhabdas Oswal and Anr. V/s. Shree Constructors and Developers, a partnership firm through its partner Shri Mahaveer Dadaso Gaat) by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Kolhapur (the Forum in short). 2. The consumer complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of the builder to execute conveyance on receiving the balance consideration and to provide the bore well or well. The consumer complaint was allowed directing the builder to execute conveyance in the form of sale deed or deed of declaration, Association of apartment and also the builder was further directed to provide a bore well or well. Feeling aggrieved thereby the Opponent builder has preferred this appeal. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It is the contention of the Respondent/original Complainant Mrs.Kamal Rikhabdas Oswal and her son Dilip (hereinafter re...
Shashikiran Ashok Parekh Vs. Rajesh Virendra Agrawal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
1. The Plaintiff has filed this suit for a declaration that the Plaintiff has complete and absolute right, title and interest and is the sole owner of the suit flat bearing Tenement No.11, situated in Madhurima Co-operative Housing Society, D.N. Nagar, Andheri (West), Mumbai. The Plaintiff has also sought a declaration that she is the owner of Flat 303 in the newly constructed building of Defendant No.2 Society. The Plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion for injunction and appointment of the Court Receiver. in respect of the suit flat.2. The Plaintiff is the sister of Defendant No.1. It is the case of the Plaintiff that on 21 October 1974, the Plaintiff was allotted Tenement No.11 in Building No.1 at D.N. Nagar, Andheri by MHADA. The Plaintiff had paid entire consideration of Rs.24,300/- to MHADA. The Plaintiff has produced her Bank statement showing the payments made. The Plaintiff got married on 10 March 1980 and shifted to her matrimonial home. It is the case of the Plaintiff...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »