Mumbai Court May 1999 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.
Hardas Makhija, Corporator of Ulhasnagar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR79
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard parties.2. By the present petition, the petitioner impugns the election to the post of Mayor of respondent No. 2 - Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, held on 20th April 1999. At the said election, respondent No. 7 has been declared elected.3. The meeting of the aforesaid election was presided over by respondent No. 6 the outgoing Mayor. Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were appointed as scrutineers. After the members had cast their votes,scrutineers scrutinised the votes. At that stage, it appears, respondent No. 7 raised an objection in respect of validity of one vote which was cast in favour of the petitioner. The scrutineers overruled the objection. On account of the votes secured by the respective candidates the result of the election was announced by declaring the petitioner as having been elected. The petitioner was declared to have secured 34 votes as against 33 votes secured by respondent No. 7. At this stage, respondent No. 6 who in her ...
Shri Tukaram Ranu Gite Vs. Nivrutti Ramaji Gunjal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR531
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is filed by the petitioner/original complainant, being aggrieved by the order dated 7th December, 1992 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, acquitting all the accused in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1991. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 10 of the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149 read with 302, 307 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.2. I have heard all the Advocates at length. At the outset, it has to be stated that the State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, and it is also to be highlighted that since this is a Revision Application against the order of acquittal under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it has got its own limitations.3. The few facts which are required to be stated are as follows:The prosecution story as is transpired from the proceedi...
D.G. Kanhere and ors. Vs. the Registrar, University of Pune and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR804
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Leave to amend.2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the advertisement dated 27th February, 1999 Issued by the Pune University advertising 85 posts of Teachers. By that advertisement, all the posts have been reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes, nomadic tribes and other backward class candidates. The Petitioners who according to them are eligible for these posts have challenged the advertisement on the ground that their right to apply for these posts which is guaranteed to them by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India has been denied because all the posts have been reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes, nomadic tribes and other backward class candidates whereas the petitioners do not belong to any of these categories. According to the petitioners, the reservation of all the posts advertised amounts to 100% reservation which is accordi...
Dada Shankar Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3841
V.K. Barde, J.1. Heard Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel holding for Shri S.N. Loya, learned Advocate for the appellant and Smt. A.S. Rasal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.2. The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months in Sessions Case No. 265 of 1993 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. Hence, the appeal against conviction and sentence.2A. The prosecution case is that Raosaheb Kale was a native of village Karpadi. He was working as a truck driver at Pune. He used to visit village Karpadi by a gap of one or two months. On 23-5-1993 he had been to village Karpadi.3. On 26-5-1993 Balu, brother of Raosaheb, had gone to Karjat early in the morning. He returned home at about 7.00 p.m. Then, he learnt that Raosaheb had gone to the field of Dada Pawar, the accused, in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›