Mumbai Court November 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.
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kamlesh Khicha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
1. Mr . Jetly submits that substantial question of law arises for determination and consideration, in the light of the Tribunal's order impugned in this Appeal. We have perused that order, which is dated 18th June, 2013 and in the batch of Appeals (2014 (313) E.L.T. 506 (Tri. - Mumbai)). 2. We find that the Assessee is the sole proprietary concern. The penalties have been set aside because of the fact that this sole proprietary concern has been already penalized. Therefore, the sole proprietor need not pay penalty separately is the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. That was reached in the case of Mr. Gyanchand Jain, Rayesh Jain, Hiralal Jain and Kamlesh Khicha (Assessee before us). Customs Appeal No. 59 of 2013 challenging a similar direction in favour of Gyanchand Jain has been dismissed by Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) was a party on 27th March, 2014. Finding that the controversy in this Appeal is identical to that of Customs Appeal No. ...
Baker Hughes Singapore Pte Vs. Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Servi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition is filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for impugning the order dated 19th May, 2014 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting the application under section 17 filed by the petitioner for interim measures of protection. 2. In the arbitration petition for interim measures the petitioner had prayed for an order and direction against the respondent to deposit monies to the extent of the outstanding amounts of the petitioner under the Mud Services Contracts in the sum of USD2495809.75 and cost or in the alternative to provide security in regard to the said claim. The petitioner had also prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent from alienating, disposing of and/or otherwise encumbering any property and/or assets of the respondent until the final disposal of the arbitration proceedings and directing the respondent to disclose its assets and properties by way of affidavit. So...
Padmakar Vijaysingh Valvi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Government Resolutions dated 13.6.1995 and 3.7.1995 issued by the General Administrative Department i.e. respondent No.2 granting protection to the employees who have been inducted in employment prior to 15.6.1995, from termination, although the tribe certificates secured by them for availing employment have been found to be not valid. 2. Petitioner, in nut shell objects continuance of such of the employees in employment although their claim for validation of certificates are found to be unsubstantiated and the certificates obtained by them have been declared as invalid, false or fake. The petitioner by way of amendment to the petition, is also challenging the Government resolution dated 30.6.2014 extending the benefits in employment to such categories of employees. 3. Petitioner is an Advocate by profession and is rendering services for upliftment of tribes. He is President of the Tribal Rights Protection Committee, a ...
Naushad Mizan Hussain Vs. B.L. Jadhav, Intelligence Officer, NCB, and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Also heard the learned Counsel for the respondent - NCB on this application for suspension of substantive sentence / grant of bail during pendency of the appeal. The present applicant/appellant is the original accused No.2 and is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The maximum punishment awarded against the applicant is of ten years and fine of Rs.1 Lakh. 2. Initially during the trial, total three accused persons were tried for the offences mentioned above. On prior intimation, a raid was conducted by the NCB Officers. In the prior information, the name, address of the present applicant/accused No.2 along with co-accused No.1 was mentioned. There was no specific mention regarding accused No.3 a woman. In the information there was also mention regarding registration number of the motorcycle on which the present applicant/accused No.2 was to arrive on the spot...
Credential Finance Limited Vs. Aminex Chemicals Ltd and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
P.C. 1. Heard Dharam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr.Manish Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2, and 3. Heard Mr.Deepak Thakre, learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner Company is the complainant in a case pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum. The respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 are the accused in the said case. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the petitioner shall, hereinafter be referred to as 'the complainant' and the respondent nos.1, 2, and 3 as 'the accused'. The case relates to an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the course of trial, some documents were tendered in evidence by the complainant. However, those documents were not exhibited. After the case had advanced upto the stage of section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant pointed out to the Court that the said documents had been duly proved, but that inadvertently, they were not marked as exhibits...
Nilesh C. Ojha Vs. State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
MohitS. Shah, CJ. 1. Before indicating the prayers for which this Criminal Writ Petition is filed, it will be necessary to refer to the facts noted by this Court in Appeal (L) no.352 of 2014 and the orders passed by Mrs.Justice Roshan Dalvi. 2. The petitioner is an Advocate for Sanjay Punamiya, defendant no.1 in Suit no.175 of 2014. The suit is filed by the owner of a 7,000 sq. ft. flat at Marine Drive, Mumbai, alleging that defendant no.1 trespassed into the suit flat and fabricated documents to show that he is granted lease in the suit flat on a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- per month only. 3. The Plaintiff is the daughter of the owner of the building claiming title of the entire building of which the suit flat is one of the flats. The Plaintiff's case in the suit is that Sanjay Punamiya (Defendant no.1) trespassed upon the suit flat which was in possession and occupation of Mr.Faizal Essa Alyousuf Al-Essa (`Faizal'), who was the constituted attorney of Plaintiff's father. The said Fai...
Dattatraya Hari Mane and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2014
(Signed Order pronounced by Oka, J. at Mumbai in accordance with Rule 1(i) of Chapter XI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 as Chandurkar, J. is sitting at Nagpur Bench) A.S. Oka, J. 1. Rule. Advocates mentioned above representing the concerned Respondents waive service. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the learned counsel representing various Respondents as well as the learned AGP for the State on the prayer for issuing interim directions against third to sixth Respondents in PIL No.183 of 2012 (The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, The Municipal Corporation for the City of Kolhapur, and the Ichalkaranji Municipal Council). We are issuing Rule on interim relief returnable on 22nd December, 2014 for the purposes of issuing interim directions against the other Respondents and further interim directions against all the Respondents. 2. By these Petitions, the Petitioners have invited the attention of the Court to the pollution caused to ...
State of Goa, Through P.I. (Major) Vs. Anant Manerkar (Major)
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Ms. Gawas, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This is State appeal filed against the judgment dated 13/07/2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanguem Goa (J.M.F.C., for short) in Case No. 18/S/2008 by which the respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code ( I.P.C., for short). The respondent shall hereinafter be referred to as the accused. 3. The Curchorem Police had filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 23/09/2007 at about 14.45 hours at Guddemol, Sanvordem, the accused being the cleaner of the tipper truck bearing No. GA-09-T-8055, without possessing authorized heavy motor driving licence and without permission/knowledge of the driver, drove the said tipper truck in a rash and negligent manner, waiving his hand at the passerby on the narrow village road and dashed against a pedestr...
Vardhaman Developers Limited Vs. Andheri Krupa Prasad Co-operative Hou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2014
Oral Order: 1. Plaintiffs have filed Notice of Motion No. 16 of 2014 inter alia praying for appointment of court receiver of 17 flats described in prayer (a) of Notice of Motion with a direction to take forcible possession from defendant no. 2 to 21 and to hand over the same to the plaintiff for demolition and for carrying out redevelopment of the said property and to shift to the transit accommodation of their choice by accepting transit corporation, corpus fund and transportation charges as have been paid by the plaintiffs to the other members of the defendant no. 1 society. The plaintiffs also seek an injunction order against those defendants from entering upon the suit property as well as the 17 flats described in prayer (a). In so far as Notice of Motion (L) No.1885 of 2014 is concerned, the said notice of motion is filed by the defendant no. 13 inter alia praying for rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11(a) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the plaint ...
Gajanan Lobaji Kitturkar Vs. Smt. Sumati S. Bhandari and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Mulgoankar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Teles, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mrs. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31/10/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji, Goa (trial Court, for short) in Criminal Case No.OA NIA 424/2010/C. 3. The appellant was the complainant and the respondent No.1 was the accused in the said case. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal Case. 4. The complainant had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act, for short) which gave rise to the said Criminal Case No.OA NIA 424/2010/C. 5. Case of the complainant, in short, was as follows : The complainant and the accused were working for New India Assurance Company Limited. The accused needed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »