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.
M/s. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. and Another Vs. Workmen, represen ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Shivraj Gaokar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition challenges the Order dated 13.03.2012 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal whereby the preliminary issue raised by the Petitioners to the effect that no appropriate notice under Section 19(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short 'The Act'), served on the Petitioners to terminate the settlement came to be rejected. 3. Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has assailed the impugned Order essentially on the ground that under the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Act, it is mandatory for the Respondents to serve a notice of two months in order to show their intention of terminating a settlement. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the settlement arrived at between the Petitioners and the Union/Respondents, was for a period ending 3...
Ernestina Pereira (Since Deceased) Through Her Legal Heirs and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Shivan Dessai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri D. Vernekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by the consent of learned Counsels. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao, dated 03.05.2011 whereby an application filed by the petitioners for leave to produce the documents came to be partly allowed and the documents mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1(b) to (g) at para 1 of the application came to be rejected. As a result of the impugned order, the petitioners were denied leave to produce the survey plan of the survey holding No.43/1-A and 1-B of Village Nuvem, Form I and XIV of survey holding No. 43/1-A of Village Nuvem, judgment and order in LRC No. 531/2005/III, death and burial certificate of Esmeralda Pereira, agreement dated 16.11.1991, and notice issued by the Additional Collector...
Shivram Raoji Parcenkar and Others Vs. Subhash Pandhari Naik Desai and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Shivan Dessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri M. P. Almeida, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Quepem dated 27/03/2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner for recasting of issues came to be dismissed. 4. Shri S. Dessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the learned Judge whilst framing issue no.2 has framed an issue as to whether the petitioners are entitled for easmentary right over the property belonging to the respondents, but however lost sight of the fact that the petitioners are also claiming such right on the ground that the property of the petitioners is landlocked under Article 2309 of the Portuguese Civil Code. The learned Counsel further pointed...
Pramila Vassant Shetkar and Others Vs. Cabido De Se Primacial of Cathe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith. 3. Notice was issued to the Respondents for disposal of the above Petition finally at the stage of admission. Despite of said notice, none appeared for the Respondent. 4. The above Petition challenges the Order dated 15.12.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Quepem, whereby the cross examination of the Petitioners of Dw.2 and Dw.3 was closed in view of the absence of the Advocate appearing for the Petitioners. 5. Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has pointed out that the Petitioners have never sought any adjournment and that on the relevant date, the Advocate appearing for the Petitioners was present at 11.30 a.m. before the learned Judge but the witness was absent but, however, as he had to attend the funeral, he had to leave the Court and, as such, when the matter was called out at 12 O'Clock, the Petitioners requ...
Hazari Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
Ashok Jindal: In this appeal the appellant has challenged the loading of value on the imported goods made by the adjudicating authority on the basis of contemporaneous imports made at Chennai Port. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported certain electronic goods i.e., MCCB and DHL. On examination of the goods, it was found on the packing box of the impugned goods that the country of origin was mentioned as Japan instead of China as mentioned in the Bill of Entry. Therefore, suspicion arose and further examination was carried out. Out of the 8 items imported, 4 items were found to be undervalued on the basis of contemporaneous import made at Chennai Port of similar goods. Therefore, a case was made out against the appellant and value was loaded, goods were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty. The order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the adjudication order. Therefore, the appellant are before us...
Bullows India Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The appellants filed these appeals against common adjudication order. 3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Bullows India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Bullows Paint and Equipment Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification No. 175/86-CE and subsequently Notification No.1/93-CE. Show cause notice was issued on the ground that M/s. Bullows Paint and Equipment Pvt. Ltd. is wholly a subsidiary company of M/s. Bullows India Pvt. Ltd., therefore the clearances of both the private limited companies are to be clubbed and a demand of Rs.22,17,719/- is raised. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the ground that M/s. Bullows India Pvt. Ltd. set up the subsidiary company M/s. Bullows Paint and Equipment Pvt. Ltd. contributing the entire share capital of Rs.10 lakhs. The holding company exercised total managerial, financial, administrative and supervisory control over the s...
C.C.Chokshi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
Ashok Jindal: The appellant are in appeal along with an application for stay and application for early hearing of their appeal. 2. Head both the sides. 3. After hearing both the sides, we allow the application for early hearing and take up the appeal as well as the stay application together for disposal. 4. The appellant are Chartered Accountant firm and they are providing Chartered Accountancy services to their clients and also providing Management Consultancy Services. The appellant are registered with the Service Tax Department for both the above services. On scrutiny of the records, it was found that there was some discrepancy in the balance sheet and ST-3 returns. Therefore, the appellant were asked to pay service tax on the differential amount between the balance sheet and the ST-3 returns. 5. In reply to the show cause notice, the appellant provided all the necessary details and also challenged the show cause notice on merits such as jurisdiction, time-bar, quantification,...
Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
S.S. Kang The appellants made a written request to decide the appeal on merits. Heard the learned AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the refund claim of Rs.18,389/- has been rejected. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products in the form of physician samples which were given free of cost to the doctors to promote the sale of their product. During the period in dispute, the appellants adopted the valuation pattern based on the cost of product + 15% notional profit to arrive at the assessable value for payment of central excise duty on such physician samples in view of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 4. In the appeal memo, the contention of the appellants is that subsequently the appellants filed a refund claim of the amount in question on the ground that the appellants cleared physician samples duri...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Vs. Star Oxochem Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of oxalic acid and at the request of certain customers, the goods manufactured were delivered at a railway station at Kolhapur for further transportation by rail and the respondents are recovering the transportation charges from the factory gate to the railway station separately by issuing debit notes to their customers. The Revenue wants to add the transportation charges to the assessable value of the goods. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held as under:- “4. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and submissions made by the appellants. The issue to be decided in the present case is whether the transportation charges recovered separately under debit notes and not reflected in the invoices are required to be added in the assessable valu...
Jyotirling Education Society and Others Vs. Jai Hanuman Shikshan Sanst ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (DR. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Rule; with the consent of Counsel for the parties returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order dated 25 October 2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur, by which the management of a Secondary School has been transferred from the Jyotirling Education Society (represented by the First Petitioner) to the Jai Hanuman Shikshan Sanstha (the First Respondent). The contention of the Petitioners is that the transfer has taken place in a manner contrary to the provisions of Clause 12 of the Secondary School Code. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are trustees of the First Petitioner. The Second Respondent and the Third Respondent are respectively, the President and the Vice President of the First Petitioner Trust. According to the Petitioners, the First Petitioner applied on 10 September 2007 for an...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »