Mumbai Court June 2013 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.
Vikrant Developers Vs. Rajendra Rajaram Basaiye and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-14-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, Petition is heard finally. 2. Petition is filed to challenge the order of issue process made in S.C.C.No.6450/10 by JMFC Aurangabad. The case is filed by respondent no.1 for offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against present petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that in view of amendment made to Section 202 of Cr.P.C. in 2006, and in view of the interpretation of this provision made by Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases including case of National Bank of Oman V/s Barakara Abdul Aziz (2013) 2 S.C.C. 488, order of issue process cannot sustain in law. It was submitted that as the petitioner's place of residence is shown as Dombivali, which is out of local limits prescribed for JMFC, Aurangabad, the procedure ought to have been followed by JMFC as laid in Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The provision now provides for making enquiry u/s 202 of Cr.P.C. or limited investigation as provi...
Deepsingh @ Deepaksingh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-14-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 4. The externment order is mainly based on eight prohibition cases mentioned in order dated 31st July, 2012. During the course of arguments it was submitted by Mr. Rode that there are 24 cases against the applicant under the Bombay Prohibition Act. Mr. Rai has submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges at least in seven cases. 5. At the outset, it may be mentioned here that what is not there in the order cannot be considered. I have to go by what is stated in the order passed by respondent No.2 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hinganghat dated 31st July, 2012. As already stated, the order is based on eight offences allegedly committed by the petitioner under the Bombay Prohibition Act. This Court has repeatedly said that the externment order under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act cannot be passed on the basis of cases pending under the Bombay Prohibition Act. There is on...
Sakhahari Vyankatrao Borlepawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Food Ins ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-14-2013
Common Judgment: Heard submissions advanced at the bar. 2. These Petitions arise out of common order dated 23.8.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded in respect of Misc Cri. Appln No.329/2000, 325/2000, 327/2000, 330/2000, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded was pleased to condone the delay in filing the complaints by the Food Inspector in respect of samples of Mixed Fruit Jam (Kissan). 3. Briefly, facts are mentioned thus: In respect of Criminal Writ Petition Nos.417/2002 and 418/2002, samples were collected from vendor on 19.3.1997 by the Food Inspector, which were sent for analysis by Public Analyst on the following dates. Report by Public Analyst was received on 19.4.1997. Samples were referred for second opinion to second Public Analyst on 21.4.1997 and report of the second analyst was also received on 11.6.1997 in respect of samples referred to in Criminal Writ Petition No.417/2002 and on 20.1.1998 in respect of samples referred to in Crim...
Gammon India Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Te ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-14-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) : Heard parties finally to find out whether question of liability of present appellant to pay interest on differential amount of sale price can be said to be a substantial question of law involved in the matter. 2. The assessee before us questions the order dated 22.9.2011 passed by CESTAT, West Zonal Branch, Mumbai, whereby the said Tribunal has dismissed its Appeal and upheld the liability of present assessee to pay interest under Section 11 AB by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2010 (250) E.L.T. 3 (SC) Commissioner of Central Excise v. International Auto Ltd. 3. In the present case, clearance of goods at a price prevailing on the said date and payment of duty accordingly is not in dispute. Existence of price variation clause is also not in dispute. The fact that price was later on hiked and the assessee then raised demand and also paid the differential duty is also not in dispute. Mr.Kapoor points out that during ...
Santosh Kumar Jangre, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Union o ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2013
Smt. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). The applicant, presently working as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, has challenged letter No. CCIT/MUM/ACR/07 dated 07.12.2007 issued by Respondent No. 2 communicating adverse remarks to the Applicant for the year 2006-2007 as well as Order No. CCIT/MUM/CR/Order/2009-2010 dated 03/04/2009 passed by Respondent No. 2 being the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, whereby the said respondent held that two adverse remarks in column 17(a) and 17(b) in his Annual Confidential Report pertaining to the year 2006-2007 were sustained. The said Respondent no. 2 was of the view that there was not sufficient material to sustain the adverse remarks in column 18(a), 18(b), 18(c), 18(d), 19(1a), 19(1b), 19(3) and 19(5). The said adverse remarks were expunged and replaced by the remarks 'Good'. The Respondent No. 2, while sustaining the adverse remarks in Column 17(a) and 17 (b) held that review notes of Commissioner Of Income Tax was damaging ag...
The General Manager, Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an Appeal arising out of the Award as regards no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 passed by the Member, Court no.2, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. According to the claimant the accident had occurred on account of BEST bus no.MH-01-LA-6788. 2. According to the Appellant the said bus was an air-conditioned bus and was designated to travel on a route between the Backbay Reclamation to Oshiwara, and was actually standing in the Oshiwara Bus Depot at relevant time. Said bus was not and could not have been on the route or at the place of the accident. 3. The case proceeds in the background that though the BEST had filed a written statement and even it had filed various documents in support of the written statement, an affidavit to support the plea contained in the written statement was not filed. 4. The document relevant to the route and status of the bus, though purportedly maintained in due course of routine business, these...
Ramchandra Algu Vishwakarma Vs. Shrikant Vasantrao Tile and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2013
1] Both the parties have requested for taking up the appeal for final hearing. In view of this request, the parties were directed to file additional documents and fresh synopsis. Those are filed and are taken on record. In view of the compliance, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2] Heard. Perused the record. 3] Plaintiff's case can be briefly stated as follows: (a) The defendant executed two documents:- (I) An agreement of sale dated 22.8.2006 for a plot of land admeasuring 4 Aares consisting of structure on ground floor. This agreement is duly registered. (II) Another document is agreement of sale dated 24.8.2006. This agreement is for sale of structure standing over the structure covered by registered agreement of sale dated 22.8.2006. This document is unregistered document and it is only notarised. (b) According to the plaintiffs they had paid amount of Rs.10,50,000/- towards part of consideration as price of properties covered by these two agreements and balance of Rs.10,0...
Rajendra Singh S/O Chandrama Singh Vs. Deenanath Keshav Bhoir, Since D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2013
1 Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the Judgment and Order dated 21st April 2012 passed below Exhibit-1 in Special Darkhast No.28 of 2010 by which the Executing Court has held that in so far as the execution of conveyance is concerned, the same is barred by limitation. 3 The facts necessary to be cited for an adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus:- The Petitioner herein is the original Plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.1208 of 1994. The Respondents herein are the original Defendants in the said suit. The said suit was filed for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 25th January 1994, which Agreement of Sale was in respect of the suit lands. The cause for filing the said suit was the reluctance of the Defendants in complying with the terms and conditions of the said Agreement of Sale dated ...
Kuber Housing Investment and Finance Private Limited Vs. Tci Finance L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2013
PC : 1. Admit. Learned counsel for the Respondents waives service. The appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of the learned counsel. 2. Leave granted on the oral request of the counsel for the Appellant to correct the name of the Appellant in the memo of appeal. The amendment be carried out forthwith. Verification is dispensed with. 3. This appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 18 June 2012 on a Chamber Summons that was taken out by the Appellant for raising an attachment which was levied in respect of immovable property. The property consists of office premises being A-1, Inder Mohini Co-operative Housing Society Ltd; 1/22, Dadabhai Road, Linking Road (Extension), Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054. 4. In a suit instituted by the First Respondent against the Second Respondent and the Third Respondent, a decree was passed on 5 April 2004 by the Third Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in the amount of Rs.78.3...
Gopal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-13-2013
The revision is filed to challenge the order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalna and the decision of the State Government in appeal filed against the said order. 2. Both the sides are heard. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalna started proceedings for externment of the Petitioner after receiving the report from the Sadar Bazar, Police Station, Jalna. Police had reported that atleast ten criminal cases were pending against the Petitioner and they were for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 384, 353, 387, 326, 342, 149, 294, 506 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under Section 4 read with 25 of the Arms Act. Police had reported that the people are afraid of the Petitioner, he was extracting money from the people and nobody was ready to come forward to give statement against him. Request was made to pass externment order against the Petitioner in respect of the Districts Jalna, Beed, Aurangabad, Parbhani and Buldhana for a period of two y...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »