Mumbai Court July 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.
Sebastian M.D Vs. M.J. Devadas
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER 1. The limited legal issue which has arisen in this revision petition for our consideration is as to whether the complaint in question was barred by limitation. 2. Briefly stated, Sebastian M.D. who is petitioner herein entrusted the work of construction of a residential building to the opposite party, respondent herein, by executing an agreement with the opposite party. Later, he entrusted the construction of two other rooms also to the opposite party. It is the case of the petitioner that the construction was defective and there appeared leakage in the roof of the residential building. Alleging deficiency in service, he filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for patching of the leakage and strengthening the building along with compensation of Rs.1 lakh for the suffering caused to him due to defective construction. Resisting the complaint, the opposite party filed its written stateme...
Prem Bala Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Satinder Saluja and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER Smt.Prem Bai, Appellant herein, has filed this First Appeal being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh(hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) which had dismissed her Appeal of medical negligence against Dr.(Mrs.)Satinder Saluja (Respondent No.1), Dr.Paras Shrimal (Respondent No.2) and others, Respondents herein. The facts of the case according to the Appellant are that on 15.07.1998 she had consulted the Respondent No.1 at her Nursing Home in Ujjain with complaints of abdominal pain for which she was prescribed medicines and in case there was no relief, she was asked to contact the Respondent No.1 again. Since the pain in the abdomen persisted, Appellant again visited the Respondent No.1 on 28.07.1998 and after undergoing ultra-sonography, she was diagnosed with bilateral T.P.Masses in the uterus and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) for which she underwent a hysterectomy on 08.09.1998 for removal ...
Chander Parkash Vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER 1. In this case, the insurance claim of the petitioner Chander Parkash in respect of his vehicle, namely, Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. HR-37-B-1646 was repudiated by the respondent-insurance company. The vehicle was duly insured with the respondent for the period from 20.01.2006 to 19.01.2007 for Rs. 3.40 lakh and the accident took place on the night intervening 08/09.02.2006 when the driver of the vehicle was driving the said vehicle from Ambala to Mohali. Admittedly, the driver abruptly felt giddy and was so perplexed that the vehicle went out of his control and fell into a pit. The driver had to be removed and taken to the Government Medical College Hospital at Chandigarh. The driving licence of the driver, Suresh Kumar was valid upto 21.03.2007. Alleging deficiency in service, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the District Forum for direction to release the claim for Rs.3,16,559/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of accident till realiza...
Yg1 Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
The appeal and stay application are directed against the of Order-in-Appeal No: PKS/406/BEL/2010 dated 27/08/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - II. 2. The facts relevant for this case are as follows: 2.1. The appellant M/s. YG1 Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. are manufacturers of drills/tools falling under Chapter 82 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various input services such as courier charges, internet, manpower supply, job-work for grooving, technical testing, labour for making punches, machinery reconditioning, consultancy, insurance, photocopier services, advertising, etc. The original adjudicating authority disallowed CENVAT credit totaling to Rs. 3,44,603/- against which the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority allowed CENVAT credit on various services such as courier charges, internet, labour for maki...
S.H. Re-rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
S.S. Kang The applicant filed this application for restoration of appeal. The appeal was dismissed as none appeared on the date fixed. In view of the reasons explained, i.e. due to illness of the counsel, appearance could not be made. In these circumstances, the order dismissing the appeal is recalled. The COD application, stay petition and the appeal are restored to their original numbers. 2. The applicant filed application for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the appeal along with stay petition. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the adjudication order was communicated to the appellant on 13.8.2010 and the appeal was filed on 10.12.2010 beyond the condonable period prescribed under the Central Excise Act and the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the Central Excise Act. 3. We find that as per the provisions of Section 35(1) of the C...
Haren Choksey Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
The appeals and stay applications are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No: 208-209/MCH/ADC/GR.VB /2012 dated 09/03/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals, Mumbai Zone - I. As both the appeals arise from a common order, they are taken up together for consideration. 2. The facts arising for consideration are as follows: 2.1. Two bills of entry, namely, No. 453053 dated 16/04/2004 and 451272 dated 08/04/2004 were filed by Mr. Ismail Kanbir Abdulla and Mr. Chadragiri Rangaiah respectively for the import of Toyota RAV 4 and Toyota Prado cars respectively. The department seized these cars on the ground that the bills of lading pertaining to these imports were issued on a date different from the date of shipment and as per the documents issued by the shipping companies in these cases, the date(s) of arrival of the vessel carrying these shipments were much later. Since the cars were second-hand, for the import of second-hand cars it should have been in the possession of the im...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ravindra Chandrabhan Bawane
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
1. The State of Maharashtra has challenged validity and legality of the Judgment and order dated 27/02/2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati in Regular Criminal Case No.181 of 1996 Whereby the learned trial Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard the submissions at the Bar. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are thus:- On 11/02/1996, Dr. Jaya Motiramji Thorat, Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, Talvel, Taluka Chandur Bazar lodged report being C.R. No. 34 of 1996 at Chandur Bazar Police station against the respondent/accused, stating that, while the accused resumed his duties as a junior Clerk in Primary Health Center, Talvel on promotion he was entrusted with the duties of preparing payment Bills of the staff, to bring cash amount from the Bank, to keep cash with him in the cash box, distribute payment to the staff and do the administration work. The accused went to ...
Avm Capital Services Private Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
By the above Company Scheme Petitions, sanction of this Court is sought under Sections 391 to 394 read with Sections 80, 100 to 103 of the Companies Act, 1956, to the scheme of arrangement whereunder the five Companies ‘AVM Capital Services Private Limited (ACPL); Chevy Capital Services Private Limited (CCSPL); PM Capital Services Private Limited (PCSPL); Pranit Trading Private Limited (PTPL); and Viramrut Trading Private Limited (VTPL) (the Transferor Companies) are sought to be merged with Unichem Laboratories Limited (ULL) (the Transferee Company). Pursuant to the Scheme, the entire undertaking of the Transferor Companies would stand vested with the Transferee Company. 2. The shareholders of the Transferor Companies and the Transferee Company have approved the Scheme. A meeting of the share holders of the Transferee Company was held on November 3, 2011. At this meeting, all the share holders present at the meeting, voted in favour of the Scheme, except Mr.Shailesh Mehta –...
Avm Capital Services Private Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
By the above Company Scheme Petitions, sanction of this Court is sought under Sections 391 to 394 read with Sections 80, 100 to 103 of the Companies Act, 1956, to the scheme of arrangement whereunder the five Companies AVM Capital Services Private Limited (ACPL); Chevy Capital Services Private Limited (CCSPL); PM Capital Services Private Limited (PCSPL); Pranit Trading Private Limited (PTPL); and Viramrut Trading Private Limited (VTPL) (the Transferor Companies) are sought to be merged with Unichem Laboratories Limited (ULL) (the Transferee Company). Pursuant to the Scheme, the entire undertaking of the Transferor Companies would stand vested with the Transferee Company. 2. The shareholders of the Transferor Companies and the Transferee Company have approved the Scheme. A meeting of the share holders of the Transferee Company was held on November 3, 2011. At this meeting, all the share holders present at the meeting, voted in favour of the Scheme, except Mr.Shailesh Mehta the Objector...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ravindra Chandrabhan Bawane
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
1. The State of Maharashtra has challenged validity and legality of the Judgment and order dated 27/02/2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati in Regular Criminal Case No.181 of 1996 Whereby the learned trial Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard the submissions at the Bar. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are thus:- On 11/02/1996, Dr. Jaya Motiramji Thorat, Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, Talvel, Taluka Chandur Bazar lodged report being C.R. No. 34 of 1996 at Chandur Bazar Police station against the respondent/accused, stating that, while the accused resumed his duties as a junior Clerk in Primary Health Center, Talvel on promotion he was entrusted with the duties of preparing payment Bills of the staff, to bring cash amount from the Bank, to keep cash with him in the cash box, distribute payment to the staff and do the administration work. The accused went to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »