Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Court: mumbai aurangabad Year: 2011 Page 3 of about 22 results (0.014 seconds)

Oct 04 2011 (HC)

Ms. Minar Exports Vs. Enforcement Committee and ors

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Decided on : Oct-04-2011

..... in group ii textile to the u.s. were prevented. other legitimate exporters who could have utilized their allotted quotas in group ii were unable to fulfil their export contracts. moreover the petitioner, having obtained quotas under the group i failed to fully utilize that quota which deprived the country of foreign exchange earnings. these facts came to light ..... contrary, the subsequent notification stipulates that a penalty, confiscation or punishment may be imposed as if the earlier notification continued to remain in force and the provisions of the act would be applicable to the notification. the subsequent notification, therefore, leaves no manner of doubt that the ambit of the earlier notification was broad and was not confined ..... by the authorities falls within the purview of law and is intra vires. the rival submissions now fall for determination. 11. the foreign trade (development and regulation) act, 1992 is an act to provide for development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports into, and augmenting exports from, india and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. section 3 ..... penalty or consequent punishment imposed as if the earlier notification had been in force. moreover, it has been clarified that the provisions of the foreign trade (development and regulation) act, 1992 would continue to be applicable; (vi) in the present case, a finding of fact has been recorded that the exporter had indulged in serious malpractices involving fabrication .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 2011 (HC)

Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Decided on : Mar-14-2011

oral :1 this appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 29.6.2007, rendered by the learned sessions judge, parbhani, in criminal miscellaneous application no. 18 of 2007, thereby punishing the appellant under section 344 of the code of criminal procedure, for giving false evidence in sessions trial no. 8 of 2006, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of rs.500/, in default, rigorous imprisonment for seven days.2 the factual matrix, which gave rise for the present appeal, can be summarised as under :pursuant to the complaint lodged by the first informant, namely shrirang munjaji raut on 14.11.2005, due to death of meerabai i.e. daughter of the complainant, criminal law was set into motion and the first information report exh. 20 was lodged bearing c.r. no. 178 of 2005 in respect of offence punishable under section 306 r/w section 34 of the indian penal code and the accused persons thereunder were tried in sessions trial no. 8 of 2006 by the learned sessions judge, parbhani, and the said accused persons were acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 498a, 306 r/w 34 of the indian penal code.3 however, the show cause notice came to be issued to shrirang munjaji raut, who was prosecution witness no. 2, under section 344 of the code of criminal procedure for giving false evidence before the court, by the said learned sessions judge, parbhani, by the judgment and the order, dated 13.4.2007, since learned sessions .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //