Mumbai Court November 2016 Judgments
Meera Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. By these two Sales Tax References, the Second Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (for short the MSTT ) has referred the following questions of law for an opinion of this Court under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short BST Act ). These references have been preferred at the instance of the Applicant. The question of law referred for our opinion are as under:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of the Schedule Entries C-II-17 and C-II-46A appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, was the Tribunal legally justified in holding that the hard-anodised utensils sold by the appellant under his sale invoice dated 12.01.1995 is a heat-resistent cookware under the Schedule Entry C-II- 46A and hence does not get covered by the Schedule Entry C-II-17? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of the Schedule Entries C-II-24 and C-II-...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Auto Creaters Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the common order dated 14th March, 2016 (for short the impugned order ) [Exh. J to the Petition] passed by the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Customs and Central Excise, Mumbai (Respondent No.4 herein) by which it rejected the Settlement Application filed by the Petitioner. To decide the admissibility of the said Settlement Application, Respondent No.4 examined the following three conditions:- (i) Whether the Application was in respect of a 'case' within the meaning assigned in the clause (b) of section 127A of the Customs Act, 1962? (ii) Whether the Applicant has paid the additional admitted duty liability along with the interest as required by clause (c) of the first proviso to section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962? (iii) Whether the condition o...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Sinai Nagarsenkar and Others Vs. Vishram Krishna Kantak (expire ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
1. On 25/02/2016, a notice indicating that the matter could be heard finally at the admission stage, was issued in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners are the original defendant nos.13 to 22 before the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.109/2010. The respondent nos.1(a) to 1(f) and respondent no.2 are the original plaintiffs. The respondent no.2 was initially the defendant no.3, who was transposed as plaintiff no.2. Respondent no.3 herein i.e. Canacona Municipal Council is defendant no.1 before the Trial Court. The original defendant no.2 Niki Fernandes has since been deleted. The respondent nos.4 to 12 are the defendant nos.4 to 12 before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in their original capacity as plaintiffs and defendants. 3. Regular Civil Suit No.109/2010 was filed by now deceased Vishram Kantak against the defendant nos.1 and 2 in which, the defendant nos....
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal Vs. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
ORDER ON APLICATION IN EP NO.74 OF 2016 IN ELECTIONI PETITION NO.6 OF 2014: 1. The application is filed by respondent No.1 to raise objection that evidence in chief in the election petition filed under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 cannot be given on affidavit as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. Heard both the sides. 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 took this Court through various provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Rules made by the High Court, Original Side Rules 1980, and also Article 225 of the Constitution of India and Section 129 of the Civil Procedure Code. He placed reliance on two reported cases like (1) AIR 2005 SC 2441 (Kailash v. Nanhku); and, (2) AIR 1982 SC 983 (Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal). 3. The relevant portion of the provision of section 87 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 runs as under :- "87. Procedure before the High Court. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules...
Tag this Judgment!Hemand Vs. Sharad and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
Oral Order: 1. By the present application, the applicant who is the informant, on the basis of which F.I.R. No.384 of 2015, for offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted in favour of respondent no.1. 2. The respondent no.1 has been accused of preparing and sanctioning eight loan cases with regard to non-existent persons, so as to enable such persons to get benefit under the NBCFDL scheme conducted by the Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati and Bhatkya Jamati Development Corporation, Latur. After aforesaid offence was registered, the applicant applied under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which application came to be allowed by the Sessions Court by order dated 9th December, 2015. This order is sought to be cancelled by the applicant. 3. Mr Malte, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Judge of the Sessions Court was not justified in granting anticipato...
Tag this Judgment!Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal and Others Vs. Kishore Wadhwani and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Defendants for dismissal of the present suit under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Code ), as barred by res judicata, or alternatively, for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. 2. The Plaintiffs claim to be registered proprietors and users for a long time of the trade mark MANIKCHAND and have filed the present suit alleging infringement of their trade mark and passing off of goods by the Defendants by the use of the mark MALIKCHAND , which is deceptively similar to the trade mark MANIKCHAND . It is the Plaintiffs' case that they are engaged in manufacture and marketing of diverse range of goods such as tea, packaged drinking water, chewing tobacco, pan masala, gutkha and mouth freshners, etc. and have adopted and used the trade mark MANIKCHAND for marketing their goods including chewing tobacco since the year 1961, the name MANIKCHAND being the middle name of Plaintiff No.1. (As of the date of the suit, as o...
Tag this Judgment!Zilla Parishad, Through its Chief Executive Officer and Others Vs. The ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
Oral Judgment: (A) Writ Petition No.6666/2006 : 1. The Petitioner/ Zilla Parishad is aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.07.2006 delivered by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Complaint (ULP) Nos.23/2000 and 101/2000 vide which both the complaints have been allowed and the Employees mentioned in Annexure-A to the Complaints, have been granted benefits of the Kalelkar Settlement coupled with the Bhole Commission Recommendations and accordingly, the Zilla Parishad has been directed to take these Employees on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) after completion of five years as daily wagers. 2. This Court, by order dated 14.12.2006, has elaborately dealt with the issue involved in this petition. The litigating sides were permitted to file their written notes of submissions and upon minutely considering the same, this Court admitted the petition and directed the Petitioner/Zilla Parishad to bring the Employees on CRTE within a period of three weeks. The direction of the Indus...
Tag this Judgment!Naeem Abdulla Khan Vs. The Commissioner of Police Mumbai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner who is the brother of the detenu - Sanaullah Abdul Khan has preferred this petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against him on 23.12.2015 by Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai. The said detention order has been passed in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drugoffenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ('MPDA Act' for short) as the detenu is a dangerous person whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention is based on one C.R. i.e C.R. No. 402/2015 and two in-camera statements of witnesses "A" and "B". The order of detention, grounds of detention along with accompanying documents were served on the detenu on 23.12.2015. 3. Though a number of grounds have been raised in the present petition whereby the detention order has been assailed, ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sambhajirao Madhavrao Rane and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
1. The appellant-Insurance Company is challenging the judgment and award dated 19.07.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal, for short), only on the ground of the alleged breach of policy condition, in as much as it is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license. 2. The brief facts are that on 06.09.2005 at 14:30 hours, the claimant was a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing no. GA-04-A-0219. The accident occurred near the gate of Goa Bagayatdar Cooperative Society at Sanquelim-Bicholim road. When the claimant and the rider of the motor cycle were coming out of the gate, one Tata mobile van bearing no. GA-01-Z-0833 came and dashed the motor cycle, as a result of which, the original claimant sustained injuries, resulting into permanent disability. The respondent no.1-claimant filed a claims petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 3. The claim petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. Vijay Sharma, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. K.N.Lokhande, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. The petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, [Court No. 3], Kannad, District Aurangabad, by which the applications filed by the petitioner/accused seeking adjournment to cross examine the prosecution witnesses are rejected and as a consequence, the petitioner/accused has lost an opportunity of cross examining the prosecution witnesses. 3. Though, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, considering the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case of P.Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 56, and the facts of the present case, the following order is passed to sub-serve the ends of justice. (i) Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, [Court No. 3], Kannad, District Auran...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »