Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J): 1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner has challenged a decision of the Enforcement Committee constituted under a notification issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Textiles on 12 November 1999 and confirmed in appeal by the Enforcement Appellate Committee. Under the decision, the Petitioner has been subjected to two demands; (i) A demand in the amount of Rs. 7.10 crores; and (ii) A demand in the amount of Rs. 3.81 crores on a finding of fact. The finding of fact is that (i) The Petitioner having obtained a quota and Visa under the GR I Category which was readily available without any premium, actually exported items covered under the GR II Category which was widely sought after and commanded a premium in the market by forging Visas obtained under the GR I category and making them appear as Visas obtai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The proceeding is filed for challenging common order made by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon in M.C.A. Nos. 686/2010 and 694/2010 and also to challenge the common judgment delivered by Jalgaon Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 51/2011 and 55/2011. The revisions were filed against the aforesaid common order made by J.M.F.C. Both the sides are heard. 2. The petitioner had taken loan from a Credit Society for purchasing Volvo bus No. MH-19/Y-4444. It is his case that he had repaid the entire loan amount, but the Credit Society had taken the custody of bus from him prior to that and Credit Society refused to give custody of vehicle to him. It is his case that he then gave report to police against Chairman and Directors of the Society and on the basis of report, the crime came to be registered for offences punishable under sections 406, 420 etc. of Indian Penal Code. The said vehicle came to be attached in the crime and the petitioner filed M.C.A. No. 686 of 2010 for int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 10/1997, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence punishable under section 306, 498-A of Indian Penal Code. This Court has heard both the sides and has perused the original record. 2. In short the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows:- The deceased Gangasagar was a daughter of Govindrao Chibhade. She was given in marriage to appellant/accused on 5.6.1995. Immediately after the marriage, the accused started expressing that the deceased had become pregnant even prior to the marriage. For the satisfaction of the accused, the parents of the deceased took the deceased to the hospital of Dr. Smt. Bhalerao for medical examination. After medical examination, Dr. Bhalerao gave report that the deceased had not become pregnant. The accused was, however, not satisfied. The accused got examined the...
Tag this Judgment!