Mumbai Court June 2012 Judgments

Shiva Naik Vs. Devidas Satappa Telgi, S/O. Satappa Telgi and Others

Court: Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J.J. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Admit. 3. Heard forthwith. 4. The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned Registrar dated 15/03/2012 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed for non-payment of process fees to serve the unserved respondents. 5. During the course of the hearing of the above petition Shri J.J. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes to pay the requisite process fees within two weeks from today. 6. Considering the said statement of the learned Counsel and in the interest of justice the impugned order dated 15/03/2012 passed by the learned Registrar deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 15/03/2012 passed by the learned Registrar is quashed and set aside. (ii) First Appeal No.3/2011 is restored to the file. (iii) Petitioner is permitted to pay the pr...

Shilpa Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shravankumkar Banshraj Pandey

Court: Mumbai

The Petitioner, the Stock Broker, has challenged the impugned award dated 28 July 2008 passed by the sole Arbitrator under the Rules and Regulations of National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai (for short, NSEIL). 2 The basic events are as under:- The Petitioner is a member of NSEIL, and also member of the Bombay Stock Exchange (for short, BSE) having SEBI registration No. INF231057432. The Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on business of shares and securities at both the exchanges. 3 The Respondent was a constituent of the Petitioner. On 15 October 2007, the Respondent opened an account with the Petitioner and signed the Member-Client-Agreement. The Petitioner allotted the Client Code No MU190 to the Respondent. The Respondent has carried out number of transactions through the Petitioner. 4 The Petitioner effected various transactions at the instructions of the Respondent at NSEIL and BSE. The Petitioner prepared and issued time to time e-Co...

Dr. Balasaheb Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs. Icici Prudential Life Insurance C ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Honble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member Dr. Balasaheb Ramchandra Gaikwad (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) has filed this consumer complaint on 7/1/2011 as against ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent for the sake of brevity). Complaint was registered as Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2011 and it was placed for hearing on admission 18/1/2011 and it was accordingly admitted on 18/1/2011. [2] Facts leading to this complaint can be summarized as under:- The Complainant had taken an ICICI Pru Life Time Policy bearing No.076575 from the Opponent and the policy was effective with effect from 1/4/2002. As per the terms of the insurance policy a premium of `5,000/- was to be paid quarterly. It is the contention of the Complainant that he was regular and punctual in making payment of the premium and he paid 30 premiums aggregating to `1,50,000/- over a period of seven years. On 7/10/2009, the Complainant received a letter ...

M/S. Nashik Metals P.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 17,99,999/-, interest and penalty. 3. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S.Rounds/Bars. Show cause notice was issued demanding duty alongwith interest and for penalty on the ground that the applicants were showing higher consumption of electricity for the production of final product. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The applicants filed appeal alongwith application before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) directed the applicants to deposit the amount of duty confirmed within 10 days. As the applicants failed to comply with the condition of the stay order the appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed. 4. The contention of the applicants is that the average production of the applicants is almost equal to the experiment conducted in the factory. For 5 years the demand is almost 18 lakhs which comes to Rs....

ial India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i), Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Appellant are in appeal along with application for stay along with condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. After considering the reasons stated for delay in filing the appeal, we are satisfied and delay is condoned by allowing the application for condonation of delay. 3. As the issue involved is of narrow compass, therefore we dispose of the appeal along with stay application today itself. 4. The facts of the case are that the appellant are shipping agent and they imported various containers free of duty and executed bond taking the benefit of Notification 104/94-Cus dated 16.3.1994 read with Public Notice no. 59/94 dated 03.06.1994 for import of containers duty free with a condition to re-export the container within a period of six months or such extended period, if any. The appellant imported three containers on 02.04.2008 and same could not be re-exported within a period of six months. Therefore, they moved an application for extension of time f...

M/S. Shreechem Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Centra ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicants filed this application for condoning the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal. The contention is that the impugned order was not received by the applicants. It is only when the employee of the applicants went to the Range office to file monthly return, it was informed that the adjudication order was passed against the applicants. Thereafter the applicants applied for the adjudication order and on receipt of the same the appeal was filed immediately. In view of the above contention the delay is condoned. 3. The applicants filed the stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,11,14,478/-, interest and penalty. 4. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the applicants are availing credit on inputs as well as on input services which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods. The case of the Revenue is that the ...

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Umadabi W/O. Mohd. Satar a ...

Court: Mumbai Nagpur

ORAL JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 15/03/2011 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pusad in M.A.C.P. No. 45/2010, whereby claim on the principle of “no fault liability” lodged under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short “the Act”) was allowed. The original opponent nos. 2 and 3 were jointly and severally ordered to pay half of the amount of “no fault liability” i.e. Rs.25,000/- and remaining half was to be paid by original opponent nos. 4 and 5 jointly and severally. The appellant before this Court is the original opponent no.5. 02] Two vehicles bearing nos. MH-34/M/6271 and MH-26/H/6832 were involved in an accident, which occurred on 17/11/2009 on Wani-Yavatmal Road. The deceased was cleaner on truck bearing no. MH-26/H/6832. While the truck bearing no. MH-34/M/6271 was proceeding ahead, the truck bearing no. MH-26/H/6832 coming from behind dashed against the truck ahead of it. Deceased sustained...

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. M/S Sunprint Ink Industries

Court: Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: Heard Mrs. A. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri V. Palekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law by order dated 22.07.2004. “1. Whether the judgment and order of the Employees Insurance Court in as much as it overlooks the provisions of Section 1(6) of the Employees State Insurance Act and notification issued by the Government of Goa in the year 1977, thereby extending the provisions of the E.S.I.C. Act to Goa, is contrary to law? 2. What is effect of payment of contribution by the respondent for the year April 91-July 92 and January 94 - September, 94 under Section 39 read with regulation 31 of E. S. I. C. Act and regulation, qua the coverage of the establishment of the respondent under the E.S.I.C. Act? 3. Whether judgment of the E.I. Court is perverse and as against the muster roll showing the names of 10 employees including S...

Kishan Chhelaram Manik and Another Vs. State Bank of India and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2012AIR(Bom)127

D.D. Sinha, J. Heard Mr.Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Damale, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 16.4.2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Misc. Appeal No.295 of 2008 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 18.6.2008 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal No.1 in Misc. Application No.34 of 2006 came to be dismissed. 3. The facts involved in the present case are as follows:- (i) A suit was filed by the respondent no.1 bearing no.198 of 1986 3/24 against the petitioners and the respondent nos.2, 4 and 5 and one Challaram Assandas Manik for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,91,32,997.96. The petitioners were sued in their capacity as guarantors in the said suit. The respondent no.2 was the principal debtor. (ii) The respondent no.1 had filed a suit bearing no.197 of 1986 against the petitioners (original defendants) for recovery of its outstanding dues. The ...

Habibabi W/O Nasibkha, Died Per L.Rs. and Others Vs. Reubai W/O Shripa ...

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

Oral Judgment: 1) Heard. 2) This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 15th July, 1991 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, (for short, the Tribunal) in case No. 83/B/91A. 3) The background facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition, are as under: (a) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.101/5, admeasuring 1 acre and 30 gunthas as “KolMala” situated at village Modhe Kh. Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad. (b) The petitioner filed an application for recovery of possession under Section 32(2) r/w Section 44 of The Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), before the Additional Tahsildar, Sillod. The Additional Tahsildar decided the said application by judgment and order dated 25th April, 1989 in favour of the petitioner, directing to put the petitioner in actual possession of the land. (c) Being aggrieved, the ...