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.
Sanjay Bhiku Gade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J) 1. The Appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2003. By the said judgment and order dated 13th December, 2005 the Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Dattatraya had borrowed Rs. 500/- and according to him, he had repaid Rs.400/- and only Rs. 100/- was to be repaid. However, the accused was demanding the entire amount of Rs. 500/- and therefore, there was dispute between them. On 8-10-2002, the appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 500/-. As a result, there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased. On 9-10-2002 the accused abused the deceased near the grocery shop of one Sal...
Mohd. Sharique-ur-rehman S/O Ata-ur-rehman and Another Vs. State of Ma ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
A.P. Bhangale, J. Both these matters are between same parties and on same subject. In fact, Writ Petition No. 1674 of 2012 arises allegedly because of cognizance taken of Writ Petition No. 6131 of 2011. Petitioner Mohd. Shariqueur-Rehman in Writ Petition No. 6131 of 2011 attempts to demonstrate that Respondent No. 7 - Syed Mujahid Iqbal, petitioner in later petition, has procured a forged caste certificate and got it validated hastily without police vigilance inquiry. He, therefore, seeks to unseat Respondent No. 7 as elected councillor of Patur Municipal Council. Writ Petition 1674 of 2012 questions a show cause notice issued to petitioner Syed Mujahid Iqbal Mujahid Iqbal therein with orders passed on preliminary objections raised therein on various grounds. Looking to the nature of controversy and various orders passed, we have heard both the matters finally at the stage of admission by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. We have referred to both rival Petiti...
Gulabrao Daulatrao Yewale and Others Vs. the Maharashtra State
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] This is an appeal arising out of the judgment and award dated 14.11.1994 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana in L.A.C. No.51/1990. The agricultural land of Gat No.20, admeasuring 2 Hectares 63 R along with constructed well, 2 zizibus trees, one mango tree, one pomegranate tree and 8 nim brees belonging to appellant and situated in village Mahimal, tahsil Chikhli, district Buldhana were acquired for constructing percolation dam at village Mahimal. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.24,934/@ Rs.11,000/per hectare and further awarded Rs.10,990/towards well. Aggrieved by this the reference was sought by the appellant. However, it was dismissed on the ground that no case for enhancement was made out. 2] In the connected matter i.e. First Appeal No.120/1995 decided on 22.7.2011 and arising out of L.A.C.No.49/1990 this court allowed the appeal and enhanced the amount of compensation @ Rs.21400/per hectare with all statutory benefit...
The Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. M/S. Jaynit Agencies and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
1 On 11 May 2012, the learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 4 and 6 appeared and made his submissions. I have already heard the counsel for the Petitioner on 27 April 2012. The counsel for Respondents was absent on that day and on earlier occasion also as recorded in Order dated 27 April 2012. To give one more opportunity the matter was kept for final disposal on 4 May 2012 in chamber. The matter was further kept on 7 May 2012 for arguments on behalf of Respondents. The matter thereafter was listed on 10 May 2012 in chamber, but on request of the counsel for Respondents, the same was listed by consent on 11 May 2012. On 11 May 2012, heard both the parties and the matter was closed for judgment. 2 After hearing both the parties and considering the rival submissions so raised, I am inclined to interfere with the Award based upon the reasons already recorded in the Order dated 27 April 2012. 3 The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, t...
M/S Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member 1. The present consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, firstly, because of delay in settlement of the insurance claim and at the second instance, arbitrarily rejecting part of insurance claim. 2. Undisputed facts are that Marine Cargo Open policy (Declaration) for the period 20/10/2006 to midnight of 19/10/2007 was issued to the complainant M/s.Patel Engineering Ltd. (herein after referred as the complainant) by the opponent M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd. (herein after referred as the Insurance Company). A machinery viz. Rocker Boomer i.e. rock drilling equipment was transshipped from JNPT Port to its destination at Loharinagpala Hydro Electric Power Project site, Uttarkashi, Himachal Pradesh. The Trailer in which it was transshipped met with a road accident near Dhule on 27/04/2007. As surveyed by M/s.Atlas Copco India Ltd., a manufacturers representative, it was reported that the boomer was bey...
Jollyboard Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Aura ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan: The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No: AGS(38)15/2012 dated 22/02/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad. 2. The appellant M/s. Jollyboard Limited filed a refund claim of service tax of Rs. 2,45,720/- vide claim dated 18/07/2011. The claim was allowed for a sum of Rs. 2,23,547 and balance amount of Rs. 22,018/- was disallowed on the ground that the said service which is described as ‘documentation charges service’ is not a taxable service as notified under Notification No. 17/2009 eligible for input service tax credit. The appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority who dismissed their appeal and upheld the order of the lower adjudicating authority. Hence the appellant is before me. 3. The learned consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant makes the following submissions. 3.1. As per the invoices issued by the service provider, the item documentation charges is cat...
Wonderpack Industries Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nas ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. Today when the matter called for compliance, the Ld. Consultant for the appellant submits that due to unavoidable circumstances, they could not appeared on 10/02/2012 when the stay application was heard. As on 10/02/2012 this Tribunal had dismissed their stay application for non-compliance. 2. As the order dismissing the stay application only for non-compliance, therefore, the same may be restored. The applicant had also filed an application for restoration of stay application as the same is dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. Heard the Ld. Consultant. As the stay application has dismissed for non-prosecution, we recall our order dated 10/02/2012 and restore the stay application on its number. 4. Today itself we have heard the stay application on merits. 5. The facts of the case are that the applicants are the manufacturer of excisable goods and they have appointed some agents outside India for promoting their products outside India. The applicants are paying remuneration...
itc Ltd. (Agri Business Division) Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export) ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order along with an application for stay of the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant imported leather and various materials for manufacturing of leather jackets against the value based advance licence duty free and claimed the benefit of Notification No.203/92-Cus dated 19/05/1992. Thereafter they fulfilled their export obligation and they have taken the export obligation discharge certificate from DGFT against the licence, therefore the licence become transferable. Thereafter they sold the licence to various other parties, who made import duty free on the basis of the said licence. 3. In the year 1999, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants on the premise that the appellant are not entitled to take input credit as per the conditions V (a) of the said notification, which prescribed that the appellant/assessee shall not take input stage credit under Rule 56A or 57A of the Central...
Bharati Shipyard Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellant are in appeal against the impugned order along with application for sty of the impugned demands. 2. Heard both sides. 3. After hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage, therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of impugned demands and have taken up the appeal itself for final disposal. 4. The facts of the case are that the appellants have imported four consignments of parts/components for ship building at Mangalore and warehoused them on various dates. Subsequently, the goods were transferred to private bonded warehouse, which was having licence valid upto 20/10/2012. As the some of the goods could not be utilised, therefore, the application for extension of warehousing was made to the Chief Commissioner on 02/04/2010 for extension of time for warehousing. The application for extension of time for warehousing were not disposed of and the same is still pending before the Chief Commissioner. Four show-cause...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Vs. S.S.Engineers and Contracto ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.AKP/199/NSK/2011 dated 25/11/2011passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Nashik. 2. The facts relevant in this case are as follows: 2.1 The respondent, M/s. S.S. Engineers and Contractors, Nashik (SSEandC in short) entered into two agreements with their clients M/s.Dirk India Ltd. One agreement is dated 23/06/2001, which is for transfer of goodwill to the respondent by M/s.Dirk India Ltd., for a total consideration of Rs.4,21,34,400/-. This consideration is paid @ Rs.30/- per ton of pozzocrete produced by M/s.Dirk India Ltd. over a period of sixty six months. The other agreement dated 23/04/2006 is for collection, delivery and handling of fly ash by SSEandC to M/s.Dirk India Ltd. On the consideration received in respect of service they have discharged service tax liability under the 'business auxiliary service'. In respect of royalties received from M/s.Dirk India Ltd., on account...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »