Mumbai Court March 2015 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.
Raymond Limited Vs. The Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. These Appeals involve common questions of law and therefore they were heard together and by consent are being disposed of by this common Judgment. After having perused the impugned order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench at Mumbai dated 2nd January, 2014, we proceed to admit these Appeals on the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the credit of Additional Excise Duty (Textile and Textile Articles) paid on the inputs was always allowed to be utilised for payment of Additional Duty of Excise (Textiles and Textiles Articles) and for no other purpose? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that credit of AED (TandTA) paid on the inputs was allowed to be utilised only during October, 2000 to June, 2001 and not subsequent thereto? (c) Whether in th...
Rameshchandra Ramchandra Golecha and Another Vs. Dy. Registrar (Money ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. These Writ Petitions lay challenge to certificates issued by the respondent no.1-Deputy Director (Money lending) and Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Taluka Akola addressed to respondent no.2-complainant wherein it is observed that the respondent no.2 had been exonerated from repaying amount of loan said to be borrowed from the petitioner. In view of orders dated 23.12.2013 passed by the Division Bench, these matters were directed to be decided by Single Judge. 2. Facts in Writ Petition No. 6817 of 2013 are being referred to: On 24.08.2010 the respondent no. 1 issued summons to the petitioners calling upon them to remain present for an inquiry that was being conducted under powers conferred by provisions of Section 13(A) of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 (for short the said Act). It was stated in the notice that a complaint had been received from respondent no.2 that the petitioners were i...
Krishnabhagwan Rajaram Sharma Vs. M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
1. Admit. The respondents waive service. By consent of parties, matter is taken on board for final hearing. In view of the identical facts in all the eight petitions, by consent of parties all the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner in each of the petition aforesaid was the original respondent in the arbitration proceedings whereas the respondents herein were the original claimants. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 304 OF 2014 3. I will first summarize the facts in Arbitration Petition No.304 of 2014 which is the main matter which has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the said 'Arbitration Act'), the petitioner has impugned the arbtiral award dated 7th October, 2013 thereby allowing some of the claims made by the respondents. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 5. Sometime ...
Ashok Chavan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-Corruption Branc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This application is made for recall of order of this Court passed on 19th of November, 2014 in Criminal Revision Application No. 136 of 2014. The prayer clause in the present application can be reproduced as under: i) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to recall the Order and Judgment dated 19th November, 2014; ii) that this Hon'ble Court fix an early date for the rehearing of the Criminal Revision Application No. 136 of 2014; iii) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this application, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the Order and Judgment dated 19th November, 2014 and/or extend the stay granted by this Hon'ble Court; iv) For the costs of the present application; v) For such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. 2. Before I proceed further it is necessary to state that the criminal revision application was filed by respondent No. 1-CBI challenging the order of the learned Spl. Judge in Spl. Case No. 42 of 201...
Vishnu Mahadev Prabhu, (Since deceased-represented by his Legal Repres ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no. 1, 3 to 5, Mr. L. Raghunandan, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and Shri D. J. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6. 2. The above writ petition, inter alia, seeks a direction or order under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19/06/2007 passed by the respondent no. 1 to the extent it relegates the Comunidade to a Civil Suit thereby refusing to take action under the Statute to demolish the disputed structure. 3. Briefly, it is the case of the petitioner that he is a component of Comunidade of Usgao and that the Comunidade is the owner in possession of the property bearing Survey No. 207/1 of Usgao village. It is further their case that the respondent no. 6 obtained a permission from the local panchayat ...
CEAT Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-III
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. This Appeal by the assessee challenges the order passed on 12th June, 2014, by which the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (West) Zonal Customs Branch at Mumbai dealt with an application seeking dispensation of the condition of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending disposal of the Appeal. 2. The Appellant assessee before us filed an Appeal aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed on 1st November, 2013, by the Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-III Commissionerate (Adjudication order). The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs.6,59,36,795/- against the appellant assessee along with interest thereon being the ineligible cenvat credit availed by the appellate assessee during April/May 2007. A penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- had also been imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. 3. Upon perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the view that this Appeal raises substantial question of law. It is, therefore...
Arun Dattatraya Narake and Others Vs. Authorized Officer, Kolhapur Dis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally, in view of the urgency so expressed. 2. By this common order, I am inclined to dispose of all these Petitions as common issues, common Respondents and common orders are under challenge. The Respondents have also filed a common reply in all these Petitions. 3. Some of the Petitioners were ex-members of the managing committee of Respondent No.2 Kolhapur District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. (for short, the Bank-society). Some of them are existing members of the managing committee. Respondent No.2 is the society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) and doing banking business being Federal Society and as other multipurpose and credit societies are its members. The society is authorised to grant a financial assistance to its member societies as per the provisions of the MCS Act, Rules and the Byelaws. The said banking business is also regulated by t...
Vasudeo and Others Vs. The Sub Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magis ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. All these criminal applications filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenge the order dated 30.5.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawada, thereby rejecting the revision applications of the applicants filed against the order dated 22.10.2012 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Wani, under Section 133 read with Section 138 of Code of Criminal Procedure against them in different criminal proceedings. 3. By the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Wani, dated 22.10.2012, all the applicants, who are the coal depot owners and engaged in the business of storage of coal on their respective plots for the purposes of commercial and industrial activities, have been directed to shift their respective coal depots from the place where they are presently situated and take them to some distant place from where the S.D.M. feels that they would no...
M/s. Visakha Petroleum Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.L. Bansal, Sole Arbitr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 30th March 2000 made by the learned arbitrator allowing the claims made by respondent no.2 and directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.48,11,103/- to the respondent no.2 with interest @7% p.a. from the date of claim till the date of award and @18% p.a. from the date of award till the date of payment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. The petitioner was the original respondent in the arbitration proceedings whereas the respondent no.2 was the original claimant. On 6th July 1993, respondent no.2 entered into an agreement for sale/supply of kerosene oil on the terms and conditions set out therein. It was provided in the said agreement that the said agreement shall come into force on 6th July 1993 and shall remain for a period of one year during which peri...
Mirabai and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.230/1999 which was pending in the Court of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. The appellants are convicted for offence punishable under section 304-II read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine. Criminal Application No.5439/2015 is filed by the husband of the deceased who is also real brother of appellant No.2. He has described the incident which took place behind his back. He had no personal knowledge regarding the incident. Though it is not specifically mentioned, the learned counsel appointed by the husband of the deceased submitted that in view of relationship between the parties, a lenient view be taken. Appellant No.1 is the wife of the appellant No.2. Learned counsel for the appellants argued on merits and in alternative he argued for taking lenient view. Other side is also heard. 2. It is the case of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »