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.
Sadanand Bag Vs. Divisional Manager and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER 1. Aggrieved upon the reversal of the order dated 16.02.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bargarh (For short the District Forum) in his favour directing the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay Rs.1,30,000/- in terms of the policy obtained by him along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim with a cost of Rs.1000/-, by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (State Commission for short) in First Appeal No. 216 of 2006, thereby dismissing his complaint; the complainant has filed this revision petition to invoke our jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the wife of the petitioner/complainant had taken two life insurance policies, one for Rs.80,000/- and the other for Rs.50,000/- on 15th of January, 2001 and 15th of January, 2002 respectively from the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. Ho...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Devrajbhai Mepabhai Bhojani
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2012
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as Act) against order dated 29.12.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short as State Commission) in Appeal No.468 of 2008. 2. Brief facts are that respondent/complainant got insured FIAT SIENA car bearing No.G.J.8.D.7798 with the petitioner/opposite party. As per terms and condition of the policy both parties agreed to sum insured IDV (Insureds declared value) @ Rs.4,64,400/-. Respondent paid premium on said IDV amount and petitioner issued policy accordingly for the period from 1-7-2003 to 30-6-2004. On 19-6-2004, the insured car met with an accident at village Udali near Bhavnagar. Respondent lodged F.I.R. at Vertaj Police Station. Thereafter, respondent filed a claim for Rs.4,64,400/- i.e. the amount for which the car was insured. Petitioner, instead of settling the claim for Rs.4,64,40...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Vs. M/S. Kirloskar Oil Engine L ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2012
S.S. KANG, VICE PRESIDENT Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the Commissioner of Central Excise dropped the demand beyond the normal period of limitation as time barred. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of IC engines and cleared certain quantity of goods manufactured to M/s. Goa Shipyard Ltd. by availing the benefit of Notification 64/95 dated 16.3.1995. The Notification provides exemption from whole of duty to all the goods other than cigarettes if supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy/Indian Coast Guard. A show -cause notice was issued on 27.8.2001 for the period 30.8.1996 to 30.12.2000 demanding duty by invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification and set aside the demand which is beyond the period of ...
The Assistant Director Employeesand#8217; State Insurance Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2012
By consent, the Appeals are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Perused record and the documents produced by the parties. 2. In these two Appeals, same question of law regarding coverage of the computer industry under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 is involved and Employees’ State Insurance Corporation is a common contesting party. The Appeals are heard together and decided by a common order. Facts of First Appeal No. 143 of 2012: 3. The Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 7th April, 2011 passed by the learned Judge of the Employees’ Insurance Court, Mumbai. The Respondent-Company is a computer unit involved in software development and other activities. After visit, the Inspector of ESI Corporation sent a letter in the form ‘C11’ on 26th June, 2001 and informed the Respondents that they are covered under the provisions of the Factories Act with effect from 1st January, 2001. The Applicants were involved in t...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Baburao Sakharam Gawai
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-11-2012
1. The appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 28/06/2000 passed by Learned Special judge, Buldana in Special Case No. 2 of 1992 whereby the Respondent accused was acquitted of offenses punishable under Section 7,13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. 2. Facts stated are:- On 17/08/1991 one Kishorkumar Manaklal Chandak resident of DongarKhandala Taluka and District Buldana approached the office of of Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged complaint against the accused who was working as Minimum wages Inspector (Agri.) in the office of the Labour Officer, Buldana. A notice was issued from the office of the Labour Officer to the the Complainant regarding an Agricultural labourer Baliram Vithoba Sawale employed on monthly basis pursuant to which the complainant had contacted the accused. The accused had demanded Rs. 300/- to settle the matter. The accused had negotiated and reduced the demand to Rs. 200/- and called the Complainant on 19/08/...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Abdul Jabbar Haji and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-11-2012
Respondent No. 1 - Haji Abdul A. Habib Gigani is reported to be dead on 5/2/2009. Death Certificate is filed on record, which is marked as “X” for identification. No legal representative of the said respondent has applied for continuation of the appeal. Hence, appeal as against respondent No. 1 abates and is dismissed as such. 2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 11/10/2000, passed by 6th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola in Criminal Case No. 1055 of 1995 whereby the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents-accused of offenses punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(ia)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The facts briefly stated are: - The complainant - Food Inspector had received charge of the case from earlier Food Inspector Shri S. M. Deshmukh, who had taken the sample of Sunflower Seed Oil on 10/1/1992, at about 14.30 hrs., from the shop of M/s Rafik Traders, Kirana Bazar, Akola. The Respondent No.1...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh S/O.Krishnarao Nandanwar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-11-2012
1. The appeal is filed against the Judgment and order dated 10/08/2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 31 of 1989 whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 5(1) (d) read with Sections 5(2) and 13(1)(d) read further with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard the submissions by the respective counsel. Perused the evidence on record and the impugned Judgment and order. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- One Abdul Azim lodged a report (Ex.114) on 19/08/1988 at about 11.30 a.m. with Anti Corruption Bureau at Nagpur informing that his father is a Tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 25/- in the house of Shaikh Usman. The house has become dilapidated and the landlord was not repairing the house deliberately. Therefore, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation had issued a notice to the landlord for effecting the repairs, but the landlord has not carried out the necessary repairs, d...
Bharat Vitthal Shete Vs. Rohidas Manaji Wahleker and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties heard finally. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order in Grampanchayat Appeal No. 27 of 2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik dated 25th May 2011, thereby confirming the judgment and order dated 24th January 2011, passed by the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar in Grampanchayat Dispute No.48 of 2010. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the election of village Grampanchayat Pimpalgaon Khand, for the period 2010 to 2015 was held on 22nd August, 2010. The petitioner herein is declared elected member of the said Grampanchayat by defeating the respondent No.1 and other candidates who contested the said election from his ward. Thereafter, after few days the petitioner is elected as Sarpanch of the said Grampanchayat. The respondent No.1 herein, filed Dispute on 14th September, 2010, before the respondent No. 3 for setting aside the election of the petitioner as per th...
The Assistant Director Employeesâ State Insurance Corporation and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2012
By consent, the Appeals are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Perused record and the documents produced by the parties. 2. In these two Appeals, same question of law regarding coverage of the computer industry under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is involved and Employees State Insurance Corporation is a common contesting party. The Appeals are heard together and decided by a common order. Facts of First Appeal No. 143 of 2012: 3. The Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 7th April, 2011 passed by the learned Judge of the Employees Insurance Court, Mumbai. The Respondent-Company is a computer unit involved in software development and other activities. After visit, the Inspector of ESI Corporation sent a letter in the form C11 on 26th June, 2001 and informed the Respondents that they are covered under the provisions of the Factories Act with effect from 1st January, 2001. The Applicants were involved in the manufacturing process and in the...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh S/O.Krishnarao Nandanwar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-11-2012
1. The appeal is filed against the Judgment and order dated 10/08/2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 31 of 1989 whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 5(1) (d) read with Sections 5(2) and 13(1)(d) read further with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard the submissions by the respective counsel. Perused the evidence on record and the impugned Judgment and order. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- One Abdul Azim lodged a report (Ex.114) on 19/08/1988 at about 11.30 a.m. with Anti Corruption Bureau at Nagpur informing that his father is a Tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 25/- in the house of Shaikh Usman. The house has become dilapidated and the landlord was not repairing the house deliberately. Therefore, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation had issued a notice to the landlord for effecting the repairs, but the landlord has not carried out the necessary repairs, d...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »