Mumbai Aurangabad Court February 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.
Shaikh Khaled Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellant, who stands convicted for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, the I.P.Code) and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 4th August, 2011 in Sessions Case No.69 Of 2010, by this Criminal Appeal questioning the correctness of same conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case can conveniently be stated as under :- (i) The appellant is the husband of Rukhsana. Both use to reside in œPathanmohalla?, Pathari, Dist. Parbhani. In-laws of Rukhsana were also residing at Pathari and also her parents house is at Pathari. Even prior to the marriage, both were related to each other. (ii) The occurrence in question arose in between the night of 30th January, 2010 and 31st January, 2010. (iii) ShaikhYousuf Shaikh Kathu (P.W.No. 4) is the uncle of ...
Bappasaheb and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.44 of 2010 on 04/07/2011. Originally there were five accused persons, who faced the trial. Out of them, original accused No.1 Bappasaheb Bhaskar Aware i.e. appellant No.1 herein and original accused No.3 Bhaskar Tukaram Aware i.e. appellant No.2 herein, (for the sake of brevity hereinafter they will be referred as 'the appellants') are convicted for the offence punishable under section-302 read with Section-34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the appellants are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section-34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer igorous Imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in de...
Yogesh Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. The present appeal arises out the judgment and order of conviction recorded against the appellant (original accused no.1) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, on 23.11.2011, in Sessions Case No.80 of 2011, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The trial court, in the afore said Sessions Case, was pleased to acquit accused no.2-Leelabai, who is the mother of appellant, for the offences with which she was charged. 3. In nut shell, the facts giving rise to the prosecution case, can briefly be stated as follows :- The appellant/original accused no.1-Yogesh, along with his mother Leelabai (original accused no.2, who is acquitted by the trial court) was residing at village Chilgaon. The marriage between deceased Alka @ Sonali with the appellant Yogesh...
Vijay Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
1. Heard Mrs. M.N. Ghanekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. P.N. Muley, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner is the accused no.1 in Sessions Case No. 172/2010, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad. There are three other accused in the said case, which is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC, and 498A of the IPC, read with Sections 107 of the IPC and 34 of the IPC. The trial is in progress. After one witness for the defence had been examined, the petitioner made an application (Exhibit 73) praying that two witnesses, whose evidence, according to him, was necessary for a just decision of the case, be summoned by the Court as per the powers vested in it, by Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [For short, "the Code"]. This application was opposed by the Additional Public Prosecutor in-charge of the matter. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by an order dated 20-12-2013, re...
Vikrant Industries Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. By this petition filed under Articles 226 read with 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the allotment of plots to Respondent No.4, Respondent No.5, Respondent No.6, Respondent No.7, Respondent No.8 and Respondent No.9 in the Latur MIDC Area and the additional MIDC Area at Latur. Coupled with the said challenge, the petitioner is also aggrieved by the refusal by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 MIDC to allot plots to the Petitioner for industrial and commercial purposes. 4. The Petitioner has, therefore, put-forth the following prayers:- "(B) By issue of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature, the allotment of plots in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 8 be quashed and set aside; (C) By issue of Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature, the re...
Viraj Alcoholes and Allied Industries Ltd. Vs. Brihan Karan Sugar Synd ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
1. This Appeal from Order is filed by the original Defendant of Regular Civil Suit No.1 of 2012 pending before the Court of District Judge, Amalner. The Respondent-original Plaintiff has filed the Suit for permanent injunction, damages, accounts and other reliefs, for infringement of copy right under the Copyright Act, 1957 and for passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (œCopyright Act? and œTrade Marks Act? in brief). The District Judge has granted temporary injunction in favour of Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant from using, printing or publishing the impugned label, Annexure C attached to the Plaint, during the pendency of the Suit. Thus, this Appeal. I will refer to the Appellant as Defendant and Respondent as Plaintiff, the way in which they are arrayed before the trial Court. 2. In brief, the dispute is that the parties are manufacturers of country liquor. Plaintiff manufactures country liquor from sugar cane molasses. Defendant manufactures the same from the...
Gramaudyogik Shikshan Mandal, Aurangabad Through Its General Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
1. Admit. 2. Record and proceeding received. Heard finally. 3. The appellant (Original plaintiff) feels aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned C.J.S.D. (Corporation Court) Aurangabad in Special Civil Suit No.19 of 2010, dismissing the appellants suit. RELEVANT FACTS 4. (a) The appellant is educational charitable trust, imparting technical education and training situate in land survey No.72 of village Satara, Tq. and District Aurangabad. A suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and for recovery of Rs.5,79,270/- was filed against the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. The suit was restricted to levy of property tax concerning library building meant for educational purpose. The plaintiff canvased, the property does not come within limits of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, and without having authority it claimed Rs.21,92,937/- as an amount of tax on library building. An amount of Rs.5,79,270/- has been paid by the appellant under duress and urged for a decree t...
Rukhminibai Pratisthan and Another Vs. Ravindra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for all the parties, we have heard these Letter Patent Appeals finally. 4. These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2011 of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition No.8744/2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the above writ petition. The original writ petitioner, for short the management, is before us in LPA No.395/2011 and the original respondent no.3 in WP 8744/2010 is before us in LPA (St.) No.25309/2012. 5. The appellant in LPA 395/2011 is an educational institution and is managing and administering four schools, namely :- 1. Saraswati Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sadawan, Tq. Amalner Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Kirti Vijay Patil Army School, Shirdon, Tq. Panvel Dist. Raigad. 3. Nawal Bhau Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Tade, Tq. Erandol Dist. Jalgaon. 4. V.N. Patil Madhyamik ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Officer Vs. Sampat and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1) Heard. Admit. Heard finally. These two appeals are pending for decision since long at admission stage. 2) The appellant/insurance company has questioned its liability to indemnify the claimants (Respondents in appeal) in vehicular accident occurred on 19.08.2000. 3) Mr.Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the claimant in appeal No.287/2007 has raised a basic objection as to maintainability of the appeal, as the appeal is dismissed against owner and driver of the vehicle. 4) Mr.Totla, learned Counsel for insurance company says, the very stand and root in the matter is about fraud played on insurance company by owner of the vehicle. There is no contractual obligation against the appellant/insurance company with owner of the vehicle and dismissal of appeal will not make any adverse impact on assertions of appellant to stake claim against the claimants. Though the Award under challenge refers joint and several liability, however, since there was basic flaw in the course of ...
Vijay Alcoholes and Allied Industries Ltd. Vs. Brihan Karan Sugar Synd ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
1. This Appeal from Order is filed by the original Defendant of Regular Civil Suit No.1 of 2012 pending before the Court of District Judge, Amalner. The Respondent-original Plaintiff has filed the Suit for permanent injunction, damages, accounts and other reliefs, for infringement of copy right under the Copyright Act, 1957 and for passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (œCopyright Act? and œTrade Marks Act? in brief). The District Judge has granted temporary injunction in favour of Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant from using, printing or publishing the impugned label, Annexure C attached to the Plaint, during the pendency of the Suit. Thus, this Appeal. I will refer to the Appellant as Defendant and Respondent as Plaintiff, the way in which they are arrayed before the trial Court. 2. In brief, the dispute is that the parties are manufacturers of country liquor. Plaintiff manufactures country liquor from sugar cane molasses. Defendant manufactures the same from the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »