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.
Smt. Biner Soman Dattatraya Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally. 2. The petitioner, a widow having 12 years old daughter, was terminated from the post of Asst. teacher. For survival, she joined some other management temporarily. The learned Presiding Officer though observed the merits of the matter, rejected her application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, as there was delay of more than two years. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in the school of respondent nos.1 and 2 with effect from 9th June 2003 continuously upto 30th April 2007. There was no letter of appointment issued to her. There is no dispute so far as she had worked for these three years with respondent nos.1 and 2. She, therefore, in fact, approached to the Education Officer on 9th January 2008 and thereafter also, from time to time and request was made even to the Management to continue her in services. She visited all these officers on various occasions, got only assurances. 4. There was no response received fro...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ca Computer Associates India Pvt. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) :- 1. This is an appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowing the respondent's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of the parties heard finally on the following substantial question of law :- “Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance made of royalty paid by the assessee to C.A. Management Inc. USA for distribution of software products in India without appreciating that the royalty had been paid on the amount of bad debts even where the software had not worked at all?” 3. The respondent had entered into a Software Distribution Agreement with CA Management Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “CAMI”) whereunder the respondent was appointed as a distributor of the products of CAMI in India. Under the agreem...
Vasant Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. The Appellant-Original Accused no. 2 has filed this appeal challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay dated 28th November, 2006. By the said Judgment and Order the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code and sentence him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for one month. The Trial Court however acquitted Accused - Appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 r/w with Section 27 of the Arms Act and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Brief facts are as under:- The prosecution case in brief is that on 20th July, 1986, PW.1 Sarvesh Jaising Chavan and one other person Silvestor James Peter found one John Lazoras lying in an injured condition in...
Chandulal Motilal Talera and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Thou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
Oral Judgment:(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J) 1 The Petitioners are owners inter alia of Gat No. 264 admeasuring 6 Hectares and 13 Ares at Village Varsoli, in the Taluka of Maval in the District of Pune. An adjoining plot of land, bearing Gat No. 263, is of the ownership of the State Government and was leased out to the Lonavala Municipal Council on 1 August 1954. Gat No. 263 has been used as a compost depot for nearly sixty years by the Municipal Council. The only available access to Gat No. 263 is through a small approach road admeasuring 13 Ares through Gat No. 264, which belongs to the Petitioners. The road from Gat No. 264 was used by the Municipal Council for access to the land comprised in Gat No. 263, where a compost depot has been in existence, continuously for nearly six decades. 2 A Petition (WP No. 126 of 2004)was filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Petitioners, the grievance being that the Municipal Council was using Gat No. 263 as a dumping grou...
Shri Nagesh Baban Gaokar, Since Deceased, by His Legal Representatives ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri M.S. Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri V. Braganza, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 25/07/2003 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.115/1998 whereby a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as 'the said Act') came to be disposed of directing that the compensation awarded be paid to the respondents no.1 and 2. 3. An area of 300 square metres from the property surveyed under no.72/5 situated in the village Panchawadi of Ponda Taluka came to be acquired under the said Act pursuant to a notification published under Section 4 of the said Act in the Official Gazette dated 12/12/1991. In view of the rival claim put up for the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer whilst passing an award under Section 11 of the said Act the dispute was referred to the learned District Judge under Section 30 of the said Act...
Phil Marketing Services Pvt Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Custom ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellant M/s Phil Marketing Services Ltd imported film rolls in bulk and filed Bills of Entry. All the assessments were made finally and the goods were cleared on payment of CVD as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Later on, it came to the notice of the Revenue that as these films are meant for retail sale, therefore, the appellant is required to make the payment of CVD as per Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. A Show Cause Notice dated 31.3.2006 was issued and the same was adjudicated and the appellant was asked to pay additional customs duty, the goods were held liable for confiscation and accordingly redemption fine was also imposed. Penalty on the appellant and on other three appellants, namely M/s Phil Corporation Ltd, Mr. S.H. Kothari and Mr. K.D. Bhat are also imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before us. 2. Mr. Naresh Thacker, the learned counsel for the appellant before us and submitted that in this case as the assessm...
H.P. Joshi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appeal is against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai wherein the CHA Licence No. 11/205 has been revoked after initiation of proceedings under Regulation 22 of the CHALR 2004. 2. The facts in brief are that a report was received by the Commissioner of Customs (General) that the appellant is involved in fraudulent import of goods such as Radio Cassette Recorders and Crockery items and by resorting to undervaluation by M/s Idol Enterprises and one of their employees Mr. Dinker Ghanekar who dealt with the Customs clearance knew the fact of undervaluation. Investigation was further conducted and during the course of investigation it was found that the appellant have cleared the goods on the fake IE Code which was found later on to have been fraudulently taken by the appellant. Therefore, their licence under Regulation 20 (2) of the Regulations was suspended. After suspension of the licence, proceedings under Regulations 22 were in...
Saurashtra Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellant, namely M/s Saurashtra Cement Ltd, has filed this appeal against the impugned order. The same is reproduced as under: “(i) The goods covered by the 13 Bills of Entry indicated in the Annexure B to this order are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 90/94-Cus dated 1.3.1994 read with Project Import Regulations, 1986. (ii) The ‘technical service charges’ are to be added to the assessable value for charging duty in respect of imports covered by three Bills of Entry, namely Nos 13561 dt 26.7.1995, 9060 dt 18.8.1995 and 10228 dt 18.11.1995. (iii) The provisions assessments are to be finalized accordingly and the differential duty of Rs 5,39,99,069/- is confirmed on the importers u/s 18 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The security deposit of Rs 50,00,000/- submitted by the importers the time of registration of the contract is appropriated in full towards the above duty liability. The balance of Rs. 4,89,99,069/- to be paid by the imp...
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal Nos RT/22-29/LTU/MUM/2010 dated 26.8.2010 and No. RT/32/LTU/MUM/2010 dated 15.9.2010 both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai. 2. The brief facts of the case for consideration in these appeals are as follows. 3. The appellant M/s Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai (Special Economic Zone Developer and Special Economic Zone Units) filed nine refund claims towards the Service Tax paid on services consumed within the SEZ and services which were used in the authorized operations of the SEZ units. The refund claims were considered and partly sanctioned vide the orders passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner against which the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who further partly allowed the refund claims and rejected the refund claims partly. We are concerned with the refund claims rejected by the lower appellate authority amoun...
Laxmanrao Manoharrao Dabir and Others Vs. Shivram Dhondiba and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No.8/B/90 dated 27th September, 1990, the judgment and order in Case No. 81/LR/TNC/A/38 dated 5th December, 1986 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad as an Appellate Authority and the judgment and order dated 30th September, 1976 in Case No.S.P.K./1178/73 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Revenue Record, Kannad. 2. The background facts as disclosed in the petition for filing this writ petition are as under: "The Petitioners are the legal representatives of one Shamrao @ Manorarrao, who was the protected tenant of an agricultural land bearing Survey No.27 called ‘Pandhari’ admeasuring 6 Acres, 32 Gunthas assessed at Rs.11.23 paise situated at village Chincholi Nakub, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad. The Respondent No.3 herein is the landlord of the suit land and the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have purchased a part of the land admeasuring 2 He...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »