Mumbai Nagpur Court December 2012 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.
Prashant S/O. Arjunlal Jaiswal Vs. Pravinchand Masram (Deleted) State ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. L.H. Kothari, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr A.V. Bhide, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Respondent Pravinchand Masram is an accused in Summary Criminal Case No.217 of 2009 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandur Railway against whom a process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been sought by the applicant. He is made respondent in the present proceedings. 3. In my opinion, it was not necessary to make him as a party respondent as he is not in picture, since the process has not been issued by the Magistrate so far. The only necessary party was State of Maharashtra. The applicant is, therefore, directed to amend the application immediately. The name of respondent be deleted and 'State of Maharashtra' be made as party respondent. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Nitin Rode waives service on behalf of respondent/ State of Maharashtra. 5. Heard Mr. Kothari, learned ...
Yeshwant S/O. Vithoba Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Oral Judgment: The applicant/appellant is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of rupees five hundred in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant is accused of having committed rape on his own daughter viz. Madhuri Kamble. The appellant was staying with his wife, three daughters and a son at village Kotamba, Tahsil: Seloo, District : Wardha. 2. The victim/ prosecutrix was studying in 10th standard in the year 2009. The appellant had sexual intercourse with her on numerous occasions. The first ever occurrence had taken place in the month of October, 2009 when the appellant had taken her daughter to a place called 'Mahakali'. It is alleged that he had committed sexual intercourse with his daughter forcibly without her consent on the way to Mahakali. Thereafter he continued to indulge into occassional sexual intercourse with his d...
Kailash S/O. Dhanraj Batra Vs. Amol Alias Jolly S/O. Shrichand Kungwan ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The applicant is complainant in Criminal Case No.12844 of 2009 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class. Applicant's grievance is that his application for issuance of summons to certain witnesses was rejected by impugned order dated 12th July, 2011. It is submitted by Mr. Dani that the evidence of Postman and Bank Officer is vital to the case of the complainant. It is further submitted that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives wide powers to the trial Court to examine the witness present in the Court as well as to call or recall the witness. It is further submitted by Mr. Dani that once the Court comes to conclusion that the evidence of a particular witness is necessary for just and proper decision of the case, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to call such a witness. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has appeared on behalf of respondent/ original accused. Mr. Mehta, on the other hand, has submitted...
Orbit Super Market Private Limited Vs. Smt. Mukta Arvind Bobde and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Oral Judgment: Since the writ petitions arise out of the order passed by the first appellate Court on 22/12/2011 partly allowing an application filed by the tenants under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is common, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.1402/2012 is the landlord and had filed Regular Civil Suit No.373/2000 against the petitioners-tenants in the Court of Small Causes Court, Nagpur for eviction and possession. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the trial Court directed the tenants to hand over the vacant possession of the property to the landlord. The tenants challenged the judgment and decree dated 28/04/2010 in Regular Civil Appeal No.401/2010. Along with the appeal, an application was moved by ...
Prabha Wd/O Ramesh Arora Vs. Bhagwandas S/O Santomal Pamnani
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel Mrs. S.P. Deshpande for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. R.B. Gaikwad for the non-applicant. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Applicant Prabha Arora has moved the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class for certain reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Magistrate had granted certain reliefs at interim stage. The said order was challenged by the applicant before the Sessions Court in appeal. The non-applicant also moved independent appeal before the Sessions Court. As such the applicant and non-applicant both were not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The applicant was not satisfied with the amount granted to her. She wanted enhanced interim maintenance. The non-applicant wanted that order to be scrapped. 4. While deciding both the appeals the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 8th May, 2012 dismissed the appeal filed by the appl...
Shivdas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Oral Judgment: Admitted. Heard finally by consent of parties. Heard Mr. B.N. Mohta, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, learned APP for respondent No.1 and Mr Giramkar, Adv.h/for Mr Lohiya, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. The applicant feels aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 12th March 2012 in Revision Application No.612/2011. Said Revision Application was filed by the respondent no.2-Aniruddha against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in Summary Cri. Complaint Case No.12791/2010. The order of the learned Magistrate is runs as under : "Accused and his learned Adv. present while complainant and his learned Advocate absent. Today the case is fixed for evidence and order on Exh.15. The complainant absent and not filed his evidence affidavit till 2.40 p.m." "Hence the complaint stands dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C." 3. The respondent No.2-Aniruddha Kamble was the complainant in said Summar...
Pappu @ Ravi S/O Nankuram Yadao Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.B. chaudhari, J.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2.2.2008, passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge 9, Nagpur in Session Trial No.227/2007 by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days and was further convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant. 2. In support of the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions. (A) There is no direct evidence in the form of eye witness to the incident in question. (B) The prosecution has placed reliance only on the evidence in the ...
Ashok Gulabrao Gondekar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Leave to correct prayer clause (i) is granted. The correction be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard. 3. ADMIT. 4. Heard finally by consent. 5. The applicant was accused in Regular Criminal Case No.173 of 2001 decided by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati by his judgment and order dated 28th September, 2010. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.One Thousand, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three moths. 6. The applicant had filed appeal before the Sessions Court against the judgment and order of the trial Court. The appeal has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 5th November, 2012 in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2010. 7. The applicant was admittedly working as Gram Sevak in Gram Panchayat of Fattepur and Jawara. As a part of his duty he was incharge of cash transactions and was mainta...
Dipak Brijmohan Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra Through, Its Inspector, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sunil Manohar for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.B. Jaiswal for the respondent/State. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 52(a) and 52(e) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (in short "the Act, 1948") for having contravened the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, 1948 and Rule 20(7) of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Rules, 1961 (in short "the Rules, 1961"). Section 8 of the Act, 1948 runs as under : "8. Change to be communicated to Inspector - It shall be the duty of an employer to notify to the Inspector, in a prescribed form, (any change in any of the particulars contained in the statement submitted under section 7 within such period, after the change has taken place, as the State Government may prescribe in respect of any establishment or class of establishment). The Inspe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›