Mumbai Nagpur Court March 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.
Suresh Son of Shankarrao More Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
ORAL :1. Appellant herein was tried for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, for:- [a] Committing rape on Sau. Meera wife of Ganesh Gujram on 6th February, 1993 between 12-00 noon and 2-00 p.m., at Gawarkheda Forest Shiwar;[b] Intentionally or knowingly causing her death;[c] Hiding her dead body in shrubs on Saldhara Kaccha road with a view to cause disappearance of evidence; and,[d] Committing above offence on the victim, who was a member of Scheduled Tribe.2. Prosecution has examined following witnesses:-1. PW 4 Ganesh : Husband of deceased Champatrao : Meera, who has Gujaram. : filed FIR.2. PW 1 - Mandabai : Ambadas : Khedkar, : Eye-witnesses proving : the circumstance : of 'last seen the : accused in company : of deceased' from3. PW 7 - Shamibai : where corpse of Bhimrao : deceased was Gujaram. : recovered.4. PW 9 - Fulabai : Mother-in-l...
Vivek Bhaiyasaheb Deshmukh and anr. Vs. Returning Officer Cum Collecto ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
ORAL RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.1. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Collector, Yavatmal postponing the election to the respondent no.3 Society from the Cotton Growers Constituency. The Collector, Yavatmal had invoked the provisions of Rule 29 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971 as, one of the candidates, who had filed his nomination form, had expired on 08.03.2011.3. The respondent no.2 had published the election program for electing the Board of Directors of respondent no.3Sut Girni. The petitioners and certain other persons had filed their nomination papers from Cotton Growers Constituency as seven directors were to be elected from Cotton Growers Constituency. According to the election program, the nomination forms were to be filed on or before 23.02.2011 and the dates for withdraw...
Yashwant Son of Devidas Vaidya Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
Oral Judgment.1. Respondents no. 2 to 6 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 304B read with Section 34 and alternatively, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant is brother of deceased Anjali who has filed present revision application. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor makes a statement that the State of Maharashtra has not filed appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.2. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for respondents no. 2 to 6. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that deceased Anjali suffered cruelty at the hands of her inlaws which led to her death. According to learned counsel, close relatives of the victim on parental side did not take recourse to police machinery because of their hope of reconciliation between deceased Anjali and her husband. It is further submitted that the evidence in the form of postmortem notes was not properly appreciated by the learned trial...
Dhanraj Gulabrao Deoke and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
ORAL :1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the application is heard finally by consent.2. Heard learned Adv. Mr. S.M. Puranik for the applicants-petitioners, learned APP Mr. C.N. Adgokar for respondent no.1 and learned Adv. Mr. P.S. Tiwari for respondent no.2.3. Petitioners pray for quashing of Special Case No. 25 of 2010 pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.4. Facts, in brief, are that:- [a] On 25th August, 2010, respondent no.2 herein lodged a complaint relating to the incident which had allegedly occurred on or about 11th August, 2008, attracting commission of offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.[b] Admittedly, petitioners as well as respondent no.2 are involved in active politics.[c] Petitioners submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, stating that the complaint was lodged on account of being instigated by a Member of Legislative Assembly etc., and requested for withdrawal.[...
Madhukar Tulsiram Tayade Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
ORAL : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the respective counsel.2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Board of Directors in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 13.9.2010 whereby the petitioner was removed from the service.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Board (Appellate Authority) is without any reasons and, therefore, suffers from nonapplication of mind and cannot be sustained in law. Similarly, the petitioner was not given personal hearing by the Board before passing the impugned order and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law. In order to substantiate his contentions, reliance is placed on the decision reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. Page 750: (Anil Amrut Atre vs. District & Sessions Judge ).4. Counsel for the the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that the...
Shaikh Dayan Shaikh Lukman Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
ORAL :1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally by consent.2. Heard both learned Advocates. Perused the Petition, annexures and citations cited at the bar.3. Petitioner was externed by order dated 21st September, 2010 [Annexure-E] from districts of Buldana, Akola, Washim, Jalna, Beed, Parbhani, Jalgaon [Khandesh] and Aurangabad. Petitioner s appeal was partly allowed and the territory of externment has been restricted to Buldana district only.4. Petitioner has challenged before this Court the appellate order dated 24th December, 2010, urging that the order of externment was without legal basis and hence without jurisdiction, and ought to have been set aside in totality.5. The grounds of challenge, as urged before this Court, can be summarized as follows:-[a] Out of four Offences referred to, Crime No. 64/06 is not covered by Chapters-XII, XVI and XVIII of Indian Penal Code and hence cannot be a foundation for Show- cause-Notice and the order too.In th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›