Mumbai Nagpur Court January 2013 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.
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Prakash Vinayakrao Shingnapur ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
A.P. Lavande, J. 1] Confirmation Case No. 2/12 and Criminal Appeal No. 376/12 are being disposed of by common judgment since they arise out of judgment and order dated 30.5.2012 passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge1, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 461/11 by which the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 376/12 (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs) and in default to suffer R.I. for five years for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/, in default to suffer S.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 309 of Indian Penal Code. Out of the fine amount if recovered, amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was ordered to be forwarded to the District Legal Aid Committee and Rs.50,000/to State of Maharashtra. 2] Briefly, the case of the prosecutio...
Ramkrushna Purnaji Raurale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Judgment: The appellants have moved this Court feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge-2 in Sessions Case No.133 of 2010 of Amravati Sessions Division. Appellant No.3 Sau. Gokula Ramchandra is wife of appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 Nitin Mankar is nephew of appellant Nos.1 and 3. 2. Appellant Nos.1 and 3 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant No.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant No.2 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the said offence and appellant No.3 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the said offence. As far as offence punishable under Section ...
PravIn S/O Bhaskarrao Borkute Vs. Dinkar S/O Bhaskarrao Borkute and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the first appellate Court on 09/07/2012 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous civil appeal. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. A suit was instituted by the petitioner against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for preemption. The petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from developing the suit property. The trial Court by the order dated 14/10/2011, rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction. The petitioner filed a miscellaneous civil appeal on 12/01/2012 against the order dated 14/10/2011 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was the case of the petitioner in the application for ...
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. the Hon'ble Member, Industri ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri S.R. Bhongade, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. By this appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant-Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nagpur has questioned the judgment dated 07th September, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2006. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant and upheld the order of the Industrial Court dated 17.12.2005 in Complaint (ULPN) No. 574 of 2002. The Industrial Court has found that the appellant-Market Committee has to pay subsistence allowance in accordance with the provisions of Clause 25 (5A) of Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 to its employee-respondent No.2. Th...
Gajendra Puranrao Tayade Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Misc. Criminal Case No.178/2011 on 3rd October 2012, which runs as under:- "1) The application below Exh.7 is hereby rejected. 2) As the complaint was sent for investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr. PC. To PSO Khallar and PSO has registered FIR. There is no any proceeding is pending in this court to pass any order accordingly proceeding below Exh.1 is disposed of." 4. This order was passed by the learned Magistrate below applications (Exhibits 1 and 7). The petitioner wanted the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(v), 3(1)(viii), 3(1) (ix), 3(2) (vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 to be added in the F.I.R. registered by Police being F.I.R. No.M-1 dated 23rd November 2011. The s...
Bharat Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Buldana on 21st September, 2012 directing externment of the petitioner for a period of two years from the districts of Buldana, Akola, Washim, Jalna, Parbhani and Aurangabad and dismissal of appeal filed by him before the Government of Maharashtra. The impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is dated 21st September 2012 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal is dated 29th November 2012. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Sadavarte for the petitioner has submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his order has nowhere stated that he himself was satisfied that order under Section 56 was necessary to be passed. Sub-Divisional Police Officer. It is submitted that the order, therefore, suf...
MohioddIn and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard learned Adv. Mr. F.T. Mirza for the applicants and learned APP Mr. M.K. Pathan, who waives notice on behalf of respondent. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Application is heard finally at the stage of admission. Affidavits filed by all the applicants are taken on record. 2. By this application, the applicants seek quashing of First Information Report No.2/2013 dated 4th January, 2013 registered at Khandala Police Station, District Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. While the Applicant Nos.3, 4 and 5 are the accused, the applicant Nos.1 and 2 are first informant and injured respectively. 4. All the applicants have filed their individual affidavits, inter alia, stating that they have settled the dispute amongst themselves and criminal proceedings initiated by applicant no.1 by lodging the First Information ...
Tukaram @ Ravi Vs. Sau. Vaishali and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel Mr. Muhammed Ateeque for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. P.H. Khobragade for the non-applicant. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant has taken exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No.E-259/2008 on 13th July, 2011. The Family Court, by the impugned judgment and order, had directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.800/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and a sum of Rs.700/- per month to non-applicant No.2 by way of maintenance. Non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 are wife and son respectively of the applicant. 4. An application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the non-applicants before the Family Court. Evidence of the non-applicants was recorded and the application was posted for recording of evidence of the applicant. It appears from the roznama that the applicant did not adduce any evidence and therefore,...
Pankaj Uttamrao Ingale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seek quashing of Criminal Case No.784 of 2011 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Akola against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 342 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Charge-sheet has been filed against the applicants pursuant to FIR filed by respondent no.2, who is the wife of applicant no.1. Applicant no.2 to 5 are close relatives of applicant no.1. 4. Applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are present in the court who have been identified by their respective advocates. 5. Applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 have filed affidavits stating that they have settled the dispute amongst themselves. Moreover, it has been stated by respondent no.2 that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, she is not...
Devendra and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. 2. By this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants against whom the First Information Report has been lodged by the non-applicant no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A 506 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, seek quashing of the First Information Report on the ground that the parties have settled the dispute amongst themselves. The applicant no.1 is the husband of the respondent no.2 and the applicant nos.3 to 5 are close relatives of the applicant no.1. The applicants are present in the Court and have been identified by Advocate Mr. Thakur and the respondent no.2 has been identified by Mr. Bobde Advocate. 3. The applicants and the respondents have filed individual affidavits, inter alia, mentioning that they want to settle the dispute amongst themselves and that the applicant no.1 and the respon...