Mumbai Court June 2012 Judgments
Excel Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan: The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No: BC/254/RGD/2011 dated 18/01/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai - III. 2. The facts relevant to this case are as follows: 2.1. The appellant, M/s. Excel Industries Ltd., filed a refund claim of Rs. 3,91,800/- on 22/12/1998 which was rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The matter came up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order No. A/983/WZB/05/C-IV dated 22/07/2005 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back for reconsideration by the original adjudicating authority and the original adjudicating authority vide order dated 25/01/2011 sanctioned refund of Rs. 3,91,800/-. However, he did not sanction interest on the delayed payment of refund. Accordingly, the appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority claiming interest on the delayed payment of refund from the date of expiry of 3 months from the date on which the original refund...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Singh Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary of Home Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. Matkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Lawande, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service. 3. The short point for consideration in the above Criminal Writ Petition is as to whether the Petitioner has made out a case for parole on the ground that his widowed mother is seriously ill which would entitle him to get such relief. By the impugned Order dated 12.06.2012, the Respondent no. 2 has rejected the application filed by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the present Petition has been filed. 4. Ms. Matkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, pointed out that the Respondent no. 2 has misconstrued the provisions of the Prison Rules to reject the application filed by the Petitioner as, according to her, there was enough evidence on record to suggest that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Damodar Gaonkar Vs. Executive Engineer, Works Division Ii, Water R ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Amey Kakodkar, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Addl. Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the Respondents. 3. The above Petition seeks to quash and set aside the Orders dated 10.01.2011, 25.01.2011 and 13.05.2011, all issued by the Respondents under the Goa Ground Water Regulation Act, 2002, (for short, 'The Water Regulations Act'). 4. During the course of the hearing of the above Petition, Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petition has pointed out that though all the impugned Orders in the above Petition have been issued under The Water Regulations Act, nevertheless, the said Act was not applicable or extended to the area where the property of the Petitioner is located. Learned Counsel as such submits that all the impugned Orders are without jurisdiction and cannot be s...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh S/O. Rameshwar Deshmukh and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
1. Both the applications are filed for relief of anticipatory bail in C.R. No. 4/12 registered with Nandurbar Taluka Police Station, District Nandurbar. The crime is registered in respect of the contravention of clauses 7, 8 (1), 13 (2), 19 (iv) and 35 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 (for short 'Order of 1985'). The contravention of these clauses is made punishable under section 3 read with 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Both the sides are heard. The papers of investigation were made available and this Court has perused the same. 2. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by a Fertiliser Inspector, who is also working as an Agricultural Officer of Panchayat Samiti. The action was taken by Agricultural Officer and police, after receipt of a complaint that illegal manufacturing activity in respect of fertiliser was going on in village Varul, District Nandurbar. 3. When police and the Agricultural Officer went to the spot with panchas, they noticed that man...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Champabai Sadashiv Raut Dessai and Another Vs. Smt. Luiza Fernand ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. Redkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri V. P. Thali, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned Counsels. 3. Shri V. P. Thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 4. The above petition challenges the orders dated 02.03.2012 and 30.03.2012 of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Quepem, whereby further examination of evidence of the petitioners was closed in view of the absence of PW2 on 02.03.2012. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on the ground that on 02.03.2012, PW2 was not present as according to him he had some election work. The learned Counsel further pointed out that on the said date, an application was filed by the petitioners to the effect that as PW2 was not available, the petitioners would examine a surveyor Mr. Tito D'Cunha. The learned Counsel further pointed out that despite of the stand t...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Francisco Fonseca and Another Vs. the Commissioner and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mrs. A. Agni, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri Shivan Dessai, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. The above petition challenges the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal at Panaji dated 15/06/2012 whereby the application filed by the petitioners praying for stay during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the learned Deputy Collector at Panaji dated 29/02/2012 came to be rejected. 4. During the course of hearing of the above petition Shri S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 as well as Shri Shivan Dessai, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 pointed out that in case the Tribunal is directed to decide the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Shri. Narayan Atmaram Shirsat Vs. Shaha Automobiles MaIn Road, Sawantw ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member) (1) Appellant is remaining absent in spite of intimation of date fixed sent by post on 08/05/2012. Respondent No.2 is present by Adv.G.B.Kamdi proxy for Adv.N.V.Masurkar. Under the circumstances, we perused the record and the impugned order dismissing the consumer complaint No.49/2005, Narayan Atmaram Shirsat Vs. 1. Shah Automobiles and ors., stood dismissed. As per the impugned order (2) Alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents that they failed to issue sim card in spite of advance payment of `220/- made on 18/03/2005. Said advance was deposited with the agent of BSNL, namely, opponent No.1, Shah Automobiles. There is no dispute about it. BSNL could not issue sim card due to waiting list. Under the circumstances, no deficiency in service on part of BSNL on the date of filing the complainant could be alleged. Further in case of non-supply of sim card, if at all, there is deficiency in service, then the BSNL is statutor...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji S/O Kashinath Kakde Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present appeal, the appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of his conviction for the offence punishable under section 304 Part I of the I.P. Code for which he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, with the default stipulation to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, in Sessions Case No. 101/2010, by judgment and order dated 22nd August, 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latur. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the just decision of this appeal can be summarized as follows: (a) One Laxmi Balaji Kakde was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Latur on 5th August, 2010. On her admission, she was medically examined, but she was found dead. Around 10 p.m. or so on that day, Dr. Siddiqui, attached to Civil Hospital, Latur passed on the information in writing to the police chowki attached to the Civil Hospital, Latur. ASI Narayan Bhujang Ranzunjare (PW9), who was attached ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Uddhav Son of Kashinath Chandekar and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the legality and validity of judgment and order dated 31st August 2000 passed by the Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No. 4 of 1989 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 5 (i) (d) r/w Section 5 (2) as also Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) (punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the Special Court erred in holding that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He contends that both demand and acceptance of the amount of Rs. 50/- as illegal gratification has been proved on record. He urged that as per Criminal Manual, only one rupee stamp was required to be affixed on bail bonds and, therefore, demand of Rs. 50/- by the accused for court fee stamp was illegal and it amounted to illegal gratification. He further submitted that accused no. 2 had no authority in law to...
Tag this Judgment!Suryakant Tanu Shetkar and Others Vs. New Milind Co-operative Housing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 16-6-2012, passed by the Learned Judge of City Civil and Session Court, Greater Bombay, by which order, the Chamber Summons being No.293 of 2012 filed by the Petitioners herein for impleadment came to be rejected. 3 The Petitioners are the members of the unregistered Bhadekaru Sangh in the name of “Bal-Govind Wadi Bhadekaru Sangh”. Since the said Bhadekaru Sangh was unregistered, that the Petitioners filed the Application in their individual capacity. The Petitioners are in occupation along with other members of the Bhadekaru Sangh, of the site in question for the last 40 years which is part of final plot No.162. The suit in question has been filed by the Respondent No.1 society inter alia for the reliefs which are appearing in the prayer clauses (a) to (e) in the plaint amongst which is the relief sought by way of prayer clause...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »