Mumbai Court June 2012 Judgments
Sau. Vijaya SachIn Anurkar (Gurav) Vs. SachIn Vasantrao Anurkar (Gurav ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties heard finally. 2. This application is filed by the applicant-wife for transfer of the proceedings in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 608 of 2011 filed by the respondent-husband, pending in the Court of 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. 3. It is the case of the applicant that, her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 19th July, 2010. Initially, good treatment was given to her, however, subsequently, relations between the applicant and the respondent were strained and as a result, the respondent-husband deserted the applicant-wife. The applicant herein filed Hind Marriage Petition No. 472 of 2011 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The applicant also filed Misc. Application No. 846 of 2011 in the Court of the Chief Judicial M...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaurao Ramchandra Mistri Vs. M/S. Shivshakti Developers and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member: (1) Mr.Nashikkar, Advocate present on behalf Appellant. Advocate Mr.Vikas Takalkar, files vakalatnama on behalf of M/s.Shivshakti Developers. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are partners of said partnership firm. On last date Mr.Takalkar, Advocate present for the Respondent No.1. He undertook to file vakalatnama on behalf of all the Respondents by next date. He files vakalatnama for partnership firm, so we hold that he appears for and on behalf of all the Partners. (2) This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Nashik, by dismissing the condonation of delay application filed along with the complaint by the Complainant. The Complainant had filed consumer complaint against M/s.Shivshakti Developers and its partners. The Complainant had booked flat with the Opponent builder developers. He had paid an amount of `6,76,000/- being the entire consideration...
Tag this Judgment!Mgi Coutier Exotech Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal along with stay applications against the impugned orders wherein differential duty has been demanded on the charge of undervaluation as they have not cleared goods by valuing the same under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of motor parts. These motor parts are cleared by them to their customers who are manufacturers of automobile. Some parts were cleared to the manufacturing division and some parts are cleared to the spare parts division. The appellants are paying duty on the transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The department is of the view that the clearances made to the spare parts division are liable to duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act as these goods are to be cleared on MRP basis. Therefore, show cause notices were issued for demand of differential duty along with interest and proposal of penalty under Section 11AC of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Parveen P. Bharucha Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cir ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. At the instance and request of the Advocates for the Petitioner and the Respondents the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the following: a) Notice dated 31.03.2011 issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No.1) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2006-2007 on the ground that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the said Act; and b) Order dated 14.11.2011 passed by Respondent No.1 rejecting the Petitioner’s objections to initiation of proceeding under Section 147 of the said Act. 3. The facts leading to the present petition are as under: a) During the assessment year 2006-2007, the Petitioner sold property at Pune to a builder for the consideration of Rs.9.2...
Tag this Judgment!Shri. Kashinath S/O Sukhlal Patil Vs. Smt. Vazirabai W/O KarimoddIn Sh ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay dated 12th February, 1992 in Revision Application No. Ten.A.148 of 1990 whereby the judgment and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amalner Division, Amalner Division, Amalner dated 1st October, 1990 in Appeal No. TNC/Appeal 6/89 came to be reversed. 2. The back ground facts as disclosed in the writ petition are as under: The suit land is comprised in Gat No. 143 admeasuring 3 Hector and 46 Are, assessed at Rs.4/- and 6 paise situated at village pimpalbnhairav, Parola, District Jalgaon (For short, "suit land"). The petitioner was inducted as tenant on the suit land in the year 1952-53, by the husband of the respondent i.e. deceased Karimoddin. The suit land was previously divided in two survey numbers i.e. Survey No.61/2 admeasuring 4 Acres and 37 gunthas and pot kharab 15 gunthas, total area 3 Acres and 12 gunthas and Survey No. 61/3 admeasuring 3 Acre and 33 gunthas. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Sau. Shailaja Rajendra Badwaik and Others Vs. Hon'ble Minister, Depart ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
By the present petition, the petitioners have put to challenge the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the State Government in Revision No. FLR-1310/RA-46/SE-2, by which the revisional authority has set aside the orders dated 20.2.2010 and 22.6.2010 passed by the Collector, Nagpur, and Commissioner, State Excise respectively; and after allowing the revision preferred by respondent no.4 directed the Collector, Nagpur, to grant him FL-III licence, in the housing or residential colony, namely Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur. 2. FACTS: Petitioners are residents of Vidarbha Housing Board Colony, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur. The residential houses in this colony are located on the road which is interior in the sense that the same is not a road with full commercial activities but falls on a side of the main road where commercial activity with a few liquor Bars and shops is carried out. Respondent no.4 Atul Jaiswal somewhere in the year 1997 purchased a residential house in the said Vidarbha Housing Board colony...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Collector ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No. 3-A. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. During pendency of the writ petition, respondent No.3 Subhadrabai died and her legal heir i.e. respondent 3-A has been brought on record. Mr. Sonwalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that the order passed by this Court directing the petitioner to deposit the cost of ` 2000/- has been complied with. He also points out the noting made by the Registry that the amount has been deposited on 17.3.2011. 4. There is no dispute that before respondent No.2, deceased respondent No.3 Subhadarabai was the applicant, who had filed an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for enhancement of the amount of compensation, in view of the award passed by the civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in relation to the land acquired for the public ...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Kaul Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
NarendraKawde, Member 1. Heard Learned Advocates for the parties. 2. This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 14/01/2005 in consumer complaint No.249/2003 (Mr.Uttam Kaul V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai (District Forum in short). The consumer complaint was filed by the present appellant/complainant as the insurance claim payable under the policy of the vehicle on account of theft was repudiated by opponent/Insurance Company. 3. Case in brief is that the complainant/appellant subscribed to insurance policy for a sum of Rs.1,66,000/- to provide insurance cover to the car purchased by him bearing No.MP-09/H-0762 from Shri C.A. Kuttappa, previous owner. Said car was stolen away during the validity period of the insurance policy. Police complaint was lodged. Opponent/Insurance Company was willing to settle the insurance claim to the tune of Rs.1 Lakh as against insured sum of Rs.1,66,000/-. The appellant/complai...
Tag this Judgment!Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. The appeal is directed against order-in-original No. 2/2011/CAC/CC(I)/APS/GR.VB dated 30/12/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), New Custom House, Mumbai. 2. The facts relevant for consideration in this case are as follows. The appellant, M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd., Medapalli Open Cast Project, Karimnagar District, Andhra Pradesh (appellant importer in short) filed a B/E No. 960349 dated 30-7-2010 for the import of ‘Off Road Refuelling Truck ATZ’ with accessories classifying the goods under CTH 8704 declaring an assessable value of Rs.94,83,900/-. On examination of the goods, the department was of the view that the vehicle under importation is not ‘off road vehicles’ as claimed by the importer and therefore, the licensing notes of Chapter 87 will apply. Since the vehicle under import was ‘left hand driven’ and type approval certificate/ARAI certificate as per the conditions of the licensing notes ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Ramesh Mahipati Randiwe and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
P.D. Kode, J. 1. The Confirmation Case No.1 of 2011 arise out of reference made under section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as "Code" for the sake of brevity) by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur for confirmation of sentence of death awarded to sole accused in Sessions Case No.141 of 2008 by the judgment and order dated 18th March, 2011. The said accused in his turn has preferred abovestated Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 2012 challenging the said judgment and order of his conviction and such a sentence imposed upon him. 2. By the said judgment and order learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted sole accused at the said Sessions Trial for commission of offence:- “(i) punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to a death for committing murder of his wife Smt.Ashwini and further ordered him to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default to suffer R.I. for two months; (ii) punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »