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. R. K. Chemicals Vs. Chief Commissioner of Customs and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
P.C: This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the action of the Customs Department in seeking to recover interest amounting to Rs.2,86,877/- from the petitioner in respect of duty payable on goods which were imported in the year 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of imports, the goods were provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) and the same at the relevant time did not provide for payment of any interest on the duty payable on goods provisionally assessed. 2 Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are:- (i) Sometime in the year 1996, the petitioner imported the consignment of Mono Sodium Glutamate (the said goods). However, there was dispute regarding levy of countervailing duty of customs on the said goods. Thus, pending further enquiry, bill of entry filed by the petitioner were provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the said Act; (ii) On 2 May 1997, two demand notices were...
Tikeshkumar Vs. District Selection Committee and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Heard Shri Kapgate, learned counsel for the review applicant/ petitioner, Mrs. Hiwase, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 and 6, Shri Parihar, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 and Shri Pardhy, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. The original petitioner has sought the review of the order dated 30th April 2012, disposing of Writ Petition No. 5897 of 2011. In the said Writ Petition, he challenged the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 5 on the post of Shikshan Sevak on the ground that she has secured less marks in B.Ed. Examination. He sought an appointment order in his favour in terms of advertisement dated 30th July 2010. Respondent No. 4 before this Court is employer “ Municipal Council while respondent No. 3 is the School. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 6 are the members of District Selection Committee, who completed selection process. 3. The review is sought on the ground that the review petitioner has obtained 61.67% marks in B.Ed. Exami...
Miss Rashika @ Rishigandha Shetye Vs. the State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order dated 04/10/2011 of Sessions Case No.41/2010, which was pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Panaji. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code. The amount of Rs.1,50,000/- found in the account of the appellant-accused is held to be extortion money and direction is given by the learned Trial Judge to pay this amount to the widow of the deceased. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be as follows: The deceased Prakash was the husband of the informant Smt. Prajwalita Gadgil. He was aged about 56 years. He has left behind two sons aged about 21 and 13 years. He was working as the Post Master of Valpoi Post Office. 3. The accused is a resident of Betkekarwada, Valpoi. At the relevant time, the accused was aged about 23 years and she was unmarried. The accused was acq...
M/S Gujarat Sweet Mart, Represented by their Partner Damodar Zaveri Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals since they involve common questions of law and facts though the period of default is different. 3. By appeal no. 12/2006, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.02.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees State Insurance Court, Panaji (ESI Court, for short) in Employees Insurance Case No. 37/2000 whereas vide appeal no. 13/2006, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.02.2006 passed by ESI Court in Employees Insurance Case No. 6/2000. 4. On 01.03.1989 and on 06.03.1989, the ESI Inspector, Shri R. D. Satpute, visited the appellant-establishment and prepared the visit note. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant. By order dated 11.10.1989, passed by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, under Section 45A of the ESI Act, the appellant was required to pay contribution of ` 26,030/- for...
Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Balasore Alloys Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral Judgment: By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner seeks to impugn award dated 3rd July, 2008 in terms of the majority award dated 20th June, 2008 and the minority award dated 23rd June, 2008 rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: (a) The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, issued Export and Import policy 1992-1997. Paragraph 64 of the said policy provided for advance release orders which would be issued against a duty free licence in favour of licence holder or the transferee of licence against the advance release orders, the person who would be entitled to import the amount so mentioned in the advance release orders. Under paragraph 67 of the said policy, it was provided that the value based advance licence of the materials imported against it may be freely transferable after the export obligation is fulfilled and the bank gu...
Altino Gracias Vs. Pascoal Dias Alias Andre Pascoal Dias (Since Deceas ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Shri Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1(a) to (c) and Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 14 and 15. 2. The above appeal challenges the Judgments passed by the Courts below whereby a suit for specific performance filed by the Appellant in respect of an agreement for sale, executed on or about 20.02.1993, came to be dismissed. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the suit for specific performance and other reliefs was filed by the Appellants on the ground that the Appellant was in need of a plot for the construction of his own house and the Respondent no. 1 was dealing with the sale of the plot of the property known as "Tareachem Bhat", surveyed under no. 83/1 of Camorlim Village of Salcete, Taluka. A Sale Agreement was executed by the Respondent no. 1 on 20.02.1993 with the Appellants to sell a plot admeasuring an area of 450 squ...
Sinhgad Technical Education Society and Another Vs. Maharashtra Univer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) Leave to amend prayer clause (d). Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally, in view of the urgency and as the matter is pertaining to the admission, affiliation and career of medical college students. 2. Petitioner No.1, a registered Public Charitable Trust, is running a Medical Collage in the name of Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical College and General Hospital (Petitioner No.2) since 20072008 after fulfilling all requisite requirements in a prescribed standards as required by the Respondents. 3. Respondent No.1 is a Maharashtra University of Health Science Nashik, (for short, "MUHS") which is an examining body. Respondent No.2 is a State of Maharashtra having control over Respondent No.1 and 3. Respondent No.3 is a Directorate of Medical Education and Research, a competent authority for admission to under graduate and post graduate Health Science Courses i.e. MBBS, BDS, MD, MS, MDS etc. Respondent No.4 is a Medic...
Welspun Infratech Limited Vs. Ashok Khurana and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral Judgment: By consent of parties both the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by the common order. By these two petitions filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as œArbitration Act?), petitioner seeks appointment of Court receiver and injunction in respect of various properties of the respondents. 2. Some of the relevant facts which emerge from the pleadings and documents filed by the parties and which are relevant for the purpose of deciding these two petitions are as under: (a) Respondent No.1 to 4 are the erstwhile promoters and shareholders of the company Welspun Projects Ltd (Formerly known as MSK Projects (India) Limited), (hereinafter referred to as œsaid company?). Respondent nos.1 to 4 were desirous of disposing of their entire share holding of the said company and petitioner agreed to purchase the same. On 18th March, 2010, petitioner and respondent nos.1 to 4 entered into a share purchas...
Aronio Agnelo Luis Fernandes Vs. Richa Vaz and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Bhatkuly, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. N. Pimenta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law. (1) Whether the impugned judgment and order of both the Lower Courts are vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence, particularly the deposition at pages 12 and 13 of the DW.1 and that the plaintiff was out of Goa from September, 1991 to November, 1992 and returned only once during this period and that too 10 days after the birth of defendant no.2 and therefore, whether the findings in that regard are perverse? (2) Whether the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit by placing the onus of proof on the plaintiff, when due to the admission of DW.1 and pages 12 and 13 of her deposition, the onus of proof had shifted on the defendants? 3. The appellant filed a suit disputing the paternity of the child which came to be born to the respondent no.1. It ...
Balkrishna and Others Vs. Prakash and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral Judgment: This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed on 15.11.1995 by the 4th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 1992, thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed on 20.11.1991 in Special Civil Suit No.161 of 1985 by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur. 2. The appellants are the original defendants and the respondents are the original plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, they are being hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants in the order in which they were arrayed as parties to the suit). The facts of the case are stated briefly in the subsequent paragraphs. 3. Plaintiffs no.1 to 3 (respondents 1 to 3) and plaintiff no.4 (respondent no.4) were respectively the sons and daughter of late Sheshrao Bhagwan Lohi, the brother of original defendant no.1 (original appellant no.1) deceased Balkrishna Lohi. Sheshrao and Balkrishna had one more brother named Narayan. The ancestral properties which had come int...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »