Mumbai Court January 2014 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.
M/S P.K. International and Another Vs. the Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Order: (Chief Justice) 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 29 October 2013 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directing appellant no.1 to deposit an amount equal to 50% of the duty confirmed (i.e. 50% of Rs.41,48,337/-) and penalty of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal further directed appellant no.2 to deposit penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order dated 29 October 2013 is passed on the application for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty for the purpose of the appellants' appeal being heard on merits. 2. At the request of the counsel, the appeal is itself taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 3. Before we deal with the merits of the appeal, we are shocked to note that time and again the Tribunal has been dismissing appeals of the appellants for non-compliance with the order of pre-deposit even in cases where the owner directly pre-deposits, the T...
Communidade of Morombi-opequeno Vs. Luis Sales De Andrade E. Souza and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether erroneous appreciation of the documents and the evidence on record vitiated the findings and which resulted in grave injustice to appellants?? (2) Whether the District Judge was justified in upholding the ownership of the plaintiffs to the suit property when they did not produce any Sale Deed to show the details of the property purchased and the extent of ownership and whether the same in any manner concerns the suit property ? 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service of notice after admission. By consent heard forthwith. 4. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 21/12/2012 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-I, (FTC), Panaji ('First Appellate Court', for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No.88 of...
Chidambar Ramesh Chanekar and Another Vs. Navanand Ramesh Chanekar and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. T. George John holding for Mr. Dukle, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 10/11/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Margao-Goa in Regular civil Suit No. 215/2011/E, whereby the oral request of petitioner no. 1 (defendant no. 1) for time was rejected and cross-examination of P.W.1 (plaintiff no. 1) by him was closed and the cross-examination of PW1 by respondent no. 2 (defendant no. 2) was closed since she as well as her Advocate were absent. 4. Petitioners are defendants in the said suit whereas respondents are the plaintiffs. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 5. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit No. 215/2011/E for declaration, permanent injunction and seeking ...
Balasaheb Sukhdev Navlikar (Kamble) Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. The Appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, by judgment dated 2 February 2006 in Sessions Case No.180 of 2004, by this Appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus: P.W.7 P.S.I. Ananda Devudkar who was attached to Laxmipuri Police Station and was on duty on 30 July 20014, recorded the report of P.W.3 Usha at 7 to 7.15 a.m. at Exhibit 19. On the basis of the said report of P.W.3 Usha, an offence vide Crime No.68 of 2004 was registered for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation of the said crime was then entrusted to P.W.8 P.I. Vinod Satav. 3. P.W.8 V...
Mustakim Ahmed Achhanali Mansoori Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) The Appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, by the 11th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai by a judgment dated 31 August 2007 in Sessions Case No.57 of 2007, by this Appeal questions the correctness of his convention and sentence. 2. Facts in brief that are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus: P.W. 5 Police Constable Chandrakant Khade who was attached to the Tilak Nagar Police Station and was posted at bandobast duty on 25 October 2006 at Gandhiya Nagar Masjid was informed by one boy at about 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. about the quarrel which was going on in the lane. P.W. 5 Police Constable Khade accordingly followed the boy and reached near the godown. On going to the scene, he noted one injured lying in ...
Mohammed Alif Laila Vs. State, Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.15/2009 which was pending in the Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of I.P.C. The maximum sentence of imprisonment given is 10 years. Both sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of this appeal can be stated as follows: At the relevant time, the prosecutrix was 60 years of age. She was unemployed lady and she was not having her own shelter. She was leaving in Panaji Municipal market. She used to do petty work of fish vendors and shop owners to earn her livelihood and she used to sleep on the platform in the fish market. 3. The incident took place on the night between 27/12/2008 and 28/12/2008 when the prosecutrix was sleeping in the fish market after midnight. The accused came there and he removed the blanket which was taken for c...
Peter Alias Pedro Fernandes and Others Vs. Piadade Rodrigues, and His ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Vengurlekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri Melo, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Appeal has been admitted on 13.07.2007, on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether it is absolutely necessary to make prayer in the plaint for declaration regarding the existence of right of easement by prescription and if such prayer is not made, whether the suit solely seeking permanent injunction, is bound to fail? 3. During the course of the hearing of the above Appeal, Shri Melo, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has argued in support of the Cross Objection filed by the respondents. After hearing both the learned Counsel with that regard, the following additional substantial questions of law are framed by consent of the learned Counsel : (a) Could an easementary right by prescription be declared by the First Appellate Court, when a specific bar is created under section 17(b) of the Indian Easeme...
Cipla Limited Vs. Cipla Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
P.C. 1. The Plaintiff has in the above Notice of Motion prayed that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Rectification Application No.ORA/243/2013/TM/DEL, the trial of the above Suit be stayed. The present Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiff under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (œthe Act?), seeking stay of the trial of the above Suit in respect of infringement of trade mark pending the hearing and final disposal of the Rectification Application No.ORA/243/2013/TM/DEL. 2. According to the Plaintiff, its mark œCIPLA? and/or other marks derived from œCIPLA? are well known marks within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. The Defendants are using the impugned mark namely 'CIPLA PLAST' which is identical and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark œCIPLA?. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants have been wrongly granted registration in respect of the mark 'CIPLA PLAST' on 28-01-2006. The impugned mark 'CIPLA PLAST' is therefo...
inflow Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yahoo India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
G.S. Patel, J. 1. The respondent company, Yahoo India Pvt. Ltd. (œYahoo?) provides various Internet and Web-based services. The petitioner, Inflow Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (œInflow?) is a distributor of various information-technology goods, products and services, including hardware and software. 2. Briefly stated, Inflows case is that it had an arrangement with one of its channel partners or resellers, one Apara Enterprise Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (œApara?), stemming from certain inter-se payment issues. Inflow and Apara agreed that any amounts owed to the latter by third party purchasers would be paid into an Inflow-Apara joint account, styled as an escrow account. Yahoo is one such third party purchaser. Inflow claims that Yahoo agreed to be bound by this escrow arrangement. Certain products were routed from Inflow to Apara and then to Yahoo. Inflows invoices are drawn on Apara and show Yahoo as the end-customer. Inflow claims that certain invoices, aggregating to Rs. 8,56...
The Chief Officer, Latur Municipal Council Vs. Manoj Achyut Bhosle and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
1. Heard. 2. Admit. Record and proceeding received. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel. 3. The Municipal Council, Latur assails the award of compensation of Rs.1,99,433/- with interest @ 12% p.a. recorded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Latur, by order dated 3.11.2011. 4. The original claimant (respondent No.1) served, however, absent. 5. The claimant was serving with respondent No.2 as labour. Construction of shopping complex of Municipal Council, Latur was in progress at Gandhi Maidan, Latur under a agreement with respondent No.2, as a contractor. On 3.9.2001, he was watering slab and owing to fall from slab, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries. He was required to be admitted in Vivekanand Hospital, Latur. Offence vide Crime No. 39 of 2002 was registered. Respondent No.1 (claimant) asserted that he was getting Rs.100/- per day and at the time of accident, he was 20 years old. He became disable and unable to work in the same spirit, as he was d...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »