Mumbai Nagpur Court February 2011 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.
Mrs. Sushma Rameshwar Ubale Vs. Mr. Rameshwar Keshao Ubale
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
ORAL 1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Buldana on 10.12.2010 allowing an application filed by the respondent under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by him for grant of a decree for divorce. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 09.12.1993 and in the year 2003, the respondent filed a petition for grant of a decree of divorce. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner had deserted him since Holi Festival of the year 1994 and, therefore, he was entitled for grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner filed the written statement and denied the claim of the respondent. It was stated in the written statement that the respondent had desert...
Hidayatali S/O Mehaboobali Sayyed Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
: 1. Heard Shri Dhore, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Mehadia, learned counsel for the respondent. Admit. By consent the appeal is heard finally forthwith.2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the order of the Industrial Court dated 05.09.2005 came to be upheld. By order dated 05.09.2005, the Industrial Court, Chandrapur, set aside the judgment dated 28.10.2003 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint ULP No. 136 of 1998, granting reinstatement with continuity but without back wages.3. The brief facts of this case are as under : The appellant was working as a Bus Conductor with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. On 21.07.1994, the appellant was on duty as a Bus Conductor on the bus plying from Aheri to Sironcha. The Bus came to checked by the checking squad at Rangaiyapalli and it was found that 21 passengers were travelling in the bus without ticket. An enquiry from th...
Narayan Bansilal Vaishnav Vs. Champatrao Tryambakrao Deshmukh and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
ORAL .1. Heard Shri S.N. Gaikwad, the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appears for the respondents though served.2. The above First Appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 14.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Buldhana in W.C.A.No. 17/2004. By the said judgment and order, the application filed by the appellant was dismissed. The facts involved in the Appeal can be stated thus. The appellant is the original applicant in W.C. Application No. 17 of 2004. It was the case of the appellant/applicant that he was serving as a driver on Tempo Trax Jeep bearing No. MP09S1778. The said jeep belonged to the respondent to the said application, namely Shri Champatrao Tryambakrao Deshmukh. It was the case of the appellant/ applicant that he was drawing Rs. 1200/ per month as salary and Rs. 30/ per day as bhatta. The said Jeep met with an accident on 04.02.1999. In the said accident the appellant/applicant sustained injury to his right hand below wrist fo...
Miya Khan Bhure Khan and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
J U D G M E N T : 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.7.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Session Trial No. 15 of 2003, convicting the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six month, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellants2. SUBMISSIONS :In support of appeal, Mr.Kasat, learned counsel for the appellants, made the following submissions : (a) the trial Court committed serious error of law in applying the last seen theory contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the following decisions -(i) State of U.P. v. Shyam Behari & anr. - (2009) SCC 548.(ii) Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 483.(iii) K. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala (2000) 10 SCC 365.(iv) Ashok Yadav & ors. v. State of M.P. - (1996) 11 SCC 618.(v) Shera Singh v. S...
Jankiram Pandharinath Thorat Vs.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
ORAL 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 18th of August, 1992 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.5/1988, by which the judgment and decree dated 30-11-1987 passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.198/1987 came to be set aside.2. The above Second Appeal raises the following substantial questions of law :-(1) Whether the First Appellate Court committed the error in holding that the plaintiff-appellant failed to prove that the time consumed in the earlier proceeding is required to be excluded while computing the period of limitation (2) Whether the First Appellate Court wrongly held that as per the provisions of the Limitation Act, the proceedings before the Labour Court, are not civil proceedings and hence, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of the said provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that the time consumed in that Court cannot be excluded ?3. The facts in a nutshell can be stated thus :- That, the plaintiff was a ...
Vinayak S/O Yeshwantrao Junghare Vs. Balu @ Dhanraj S/O Narayan Jungha ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
ORAL :1. This Revision is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati who, by the impugned judgment and order dated 5.3.2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 57/1997 decided to confirm the judgment and order which was passed by JMFC ( Court No.4) Amravati on 11.1.1997 in Criminal Case No. 317/1990 for offence punishable under sections 326, 448 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC"). The learned trial Magistrate had convicted Balu @ Dhanraj Narayan Junghare and Bhupat Narayan Junghare for offence punishable under section 326 read with section 34 IPC and each of them were sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 3,000/ each, in default, to undergo S.I. for three months by each of them. The accused were also found guilty under sections 448 read with section 34 IPC and were directed to suffer RI for three months and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 300/ in default to undergo SI for one m...
Yogesh S/O Hanuman Thaokar and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
J U D G M E N T (Per A.B. Chaudhari, J.) :1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Special Case No. 19 of 2004, convicting and sentencing the appellants in these appeals to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, so also sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten days for the offence punishable under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing accused no.2, 3 and 6 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one yea...
Jeejau Shikshan Sanstha Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
J U D G M E N T.1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Both these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.FACTS :2. In Writ petition No.1916/2010 the petitioner claims to be a trustee of respondent no.4 education society while in Writ Petition No.1261/2010 the employees of the school run by respondent no.4 education society have a grievance in the matter of transfer of management of the school to respondent no.5 society by the respondent no.4 society. SUBMISSIONS :3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both writ petitions made the following submissions :-(a) In Writ Petition No.1916/2010 Nitin Raghobaji Raut is a trustee of the respondent no.4 Matoshri Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha and the dispute amongst the trustees are pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner in the form of Application No.20/2009. Being a trustee, he obtained an order from the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur on 15th ...
Arun S/O Tukaram Wahane Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
ORAL 1. By this revision application the revision applicant has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur on 9/11/2001 in Regular Criminal Case No.12/1998 and confirmation thereof by Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.96/2001.2. Heard the learned Advocate for the revision applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent.3. It is submitted on behalf of the revision applicant that the alleged incident of demand of dowry is stated to have occurred on 28/3/1997 but F.I.R. in respect thereof was lodged on 13/6/1997 after the delay of three months. It is further contended that the prosecution had suffered from very material improvements in its stages. The earlier charge was framed on 12/6/2000 at Exh.15 which reads as follows"That you in between the period 28.3.87 to 12.6.87 cheated to complainant Vanmala saying that, you would be married with her. Secondly you for the ...
Sanjay Shriram Gondchar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
ORAL [Per A.H. Joshi, J.]:1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally.2. This is a Letter-Petition.3. Petitioner wants earlier release upon getting set- off under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. For this purpose, he relies upon the ratio as laid down in case of State of Maharashtra & another v. Najakat Ali Mubarak Ali [(2001) 6 SCC 311].4. Heard learned APP Mr. T.A. Mirza and perused the Letter-Petition as well as the said Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court.5. Admitted facts are as follows:- [a] The petitioner was under trial prisoner in a case in which he was acquitted. [b] Petitioner was not arrested, and was not an under trial prisoner in the case which has led to conviction.6. Petitioner says that it was the duty of Police to arrest him, though he was already under arrest, and relies on the fiction that he be treated as arrested , and by applying the deeming fiction, the set-off be granted to him towards the imprisonment which he has suffere...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »