Mumbai Court June 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.
R.R. Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
P. R. Chandrasekharan 1. The appeal and stay application are directed against the order-in-appeal No.PKS/323/BEL/2010 dated 24/09/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s.R. R. Paints Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, are the manufacturers of exempted as well as dutiable goods and availed Cenvat facility for payment of duty. During the course of audit of their records, it was noticed that the appellant did not maintain separate accounts as required under Rule 6 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of common inputs service used in the manufacture of exempted products as well as dutiable products. Therefore, two show-cause notices both dated 28/09/2009, were issued for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,77,691/- equivalent to 10% of the total price of the exempted goods under Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along with interest thereon under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AB of C...
M/S L and K Associates Vs. M/S Koshy Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A. R. Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri M. Amonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Admit on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the cross objections filed by the appellant have been rejected by the Lower Appellate Court without scrutinizing the evidence on record and misreading the evidence led by the parties before the Court?” 3. Heard forthwith by the consent of the learned Counsels. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 4. A short point in controversy in the above Second Appeal is that the appeal preferred by the respondent before the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, came to be dismissed wherein the appellant has also filed the cross objections challenging the findings on the issue no.3 framed by the learned Trial Judge refusing the relief claimed by the appellant for mesne profit/damages in the suit. 5. Shri Kantak, learned Counsel appea...
The City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Heard. Admit on the following substantial question of law: A] Whether the relief granted in the nature of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, and servants from demolishing the suit house, is sustainable in law, particularly when defendant is a public authority and acts under the provisions of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act and holds the power to demolish illegal construction whenever it is noticed? Notice to respondent. Mr. Gadhiya h/f Mr. Ghare, accepts notice on behalf of respondent. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2003 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur in R.C.S.No.838/2002 and confirmed by the District Judge-7 Nagpur in R.C.A.No.209/2003 by judgment dated 28.4.2010. 2] The facts in nutshell are thus:- The plaintiff-respondent herein is owner of the house bearing Municipal Corporation No.77 Sheet no.77, City Survey No.1913, situated...
Rukmanrani Education Foundations Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Oral Judgment: [S.J. Vazifdar, J.] 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside an order dated 15th December, 2010, passed by respondent No.1 and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The petitioner, a public trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1951, runs schools in Maharashtra. The petitioner was set up under a trust deed dated 18th January, 2003, the provisions whereof entitle the petitioner to establish educational institutions and to do and perform various other matters and things in connection therewith. 4. On 29th December, 2009, the petitioner filed an application seeking approval under section 10(23C)(vi), the relevant portion whereof reads as under: “10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any...
Subhash S/O Pandurang Bagal Vs. Mohan S/O Vithoba Kanade
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 This writ petition takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 15th October, 1991 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in File bearing No. 75/B910. 2 Background facts of the case for filing this writ petition are as follows: It is the case of the Petitioner that one Vithal s/o Rangrao Lomte was the original landlord bearing Survey No.100/C and 104/C i.e. Gat No.285 admeasuring 9 Hectares, 71 Ares situated at village Hasegaon (Shiradhon), Taluka Kallam, District Osmanabad. Said Vithalrao has one daughter by name Kondabai, who died prior to the death of said Vithal Lomte. Said Vithal Lomte died on 11th December, 1966. The Petitioner is the grand son of said Vithalrao and son of Kondabai i.e. daughter of Vithalrao. The case of the Petitioner is that the deceased Vithalrao executed registered will-deed on 2nd December, 1966 in favour of the Petitioner - Subhash. The Revenue Authority has mutated the name of the Petitioner in r...
Jaiprakash Bapurao Chandoskar Vs. Divisional Officer and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar Honble Member: (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sindhudurg, in Consumer Complaint No.56/2003. (2) The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under: The Complainant had taken a telephone connection bearing No.33548 from the Opponent on 12.04.2004 and his Consumer Number is 180627. The Complainant received the telephone bill for a period 12.04.2000 to 31.05.2000 of Rs.3,447/- and according to Complainant the bill was exorbitant. Thereafter, he had taken STD facility. He had received a telephone bill of Rs.2,436/- for a period 01.06.2000 to 31.07.2000 and according to the Complainant this bill is also an exorbitant. It is contended by the Complainant that he had complained to the Opponent orally as well as in writing. However, the Opponent informed the Complainant that he should first pay the bill and then his complaint will be considered. Accordingly, he paid th...
M/S. Bevenu Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. the High Power Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) : Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. With the consent of counsel and at their request the Petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The subject matter of the present proceedings is a proposed redevelopment under Development Control Regulation 33(7) of a plot of land admeasuring 3297.68 sq. mtrs. being final plot No.1063, TPS IV of Mahim Division. The land houses 3 chawls consisting of a ground floor and one upper storey all of which admittedly are in a dilapidated condition. The Petitioners are the owners of the property under and in pursuance of a deed of conveyance dated 26 March 2010. 3. The Sixth Respondent is an association formed by the tenants and occupants. Respondent No.s 7 to 21 are occupants who have sought to form a rival association having once issued irrevocable consents for the redevelopment of the property by the First Petitioner. 4. On 30 September 2005...
Shri Rama Krishna Sarmalkar Vs. Shri Krishna Babu Kinlekar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S.G. Dessai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri A.D. Bhobe, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 4 and 7 to 13 and Shri D. Pangam, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.14. 2. The petitioner has filed the above contempt petition complaining that the sale deed has been executed on 15/09/2005 in breach of the orders passed by this court dated 31/08/2005. 3. Shri S.G. Dessai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that despite of an order passed of status quo by this Court, in breach thereof willfully the respondents no.1 to 4 and 7 to 13 have executed the said sale deed. The learned Counsel pointed out that it is a serious matter that the respondents have committed a contempt and, as such, they should be prosecuted under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The learned Counsel has taken me through the order passed by this Court and pointed out that there was a specific or...
Sau. Sonal Prafull Wani Vs. Sau. Sonal Prafull Wani
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the parties. 2. This application is filed praying therein for transfer of the proceedings of Hindu Marriage Petition No. A 290 of 2011 pending before the Family Court, Aurangabad to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. 3. It is the case of the applicant that, the applicant got married with the respondent on 9th May, 1999. Out of the wedlock, there are two children. They are taking education at Raver. It is the case of the applicant that, the respondent started ill-treating the applicant and therefore, she was constrained to file Complaint against the respondent under Sections 2, 12, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which is pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raver. Another application was filed being Misc. Application No. 162 of 2008 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raver, which came to be allowed. It is no...
Western Projects Limited and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
A.R. Joshi ,J. 1. Present writ petition was admitted on 1.2.2008 and earlier 2 of 8 granted stay in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c) was continued. Said stay is continuing till today. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, matter was taken before the Apex Court in S.L.P. (Cri) No.4879/2008 and in that S.L.P. directions were given by the Apex Court for expeditious hearing of the writ petition itself. Under this premise, matter was taken up for final hearing. Heard rival arguments. 3. By the present writ petition, original accused Nos. 13 and 14 i.e. present petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings filed against them by original complainant / present respondent No.2. 4. Present respondent No.2 filed Criminal Case No.47/2007 (CC No.66/M/2007) before the Court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. An order under Section 156 (3) was passed by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate's Court giving directions to the concerned Police to investigate and file F.I.R. As...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »