Mumbai Court November 2010 Judgments
Babu Appa Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
:1. The appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 29.8.1996 in Sessions Case No.20 of 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, whereby appellant No.1 was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of five years and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.5000/ in default to suffer S.I. for six months. While appellant No.2 was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C and convicted to suffer S.I. till rising of the Court and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ in default to suffer further S.I. for three months. Original accused No.3 was acquitted of offence punishable under Section 307 as well as under Section 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.2. Briefly stated, it appears, prosecution is that : on 23.6.1994 there was Bendur festival of bullocks in Bhadvan village, Taluka Ajara, District Kolhapur. On that day, there was procession of bullocks in the vill...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sadashiv Maroti Doke
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
:-1 This Writ Petition is filed, challenging the validity and legality of the Award passed in Reference (IDA) No. 26 of 1986 dated 20th November, 1990.The brief facts of the case are as under :-2 The respondent No. 1 herein filed Reference (IDA) No. 26 of 1986 before the Labour Court, praying therein to reinstatement, back- wages and for continuation of service in the employment of petitioner as a watchman. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that he was appointed as a watchman at Vedkinhi to look after plantation of the trees and to protect said plaints. He was appointed on 19th July, 1980, and he was removed from service on 1st April, 1983. It is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that when he was removed from service he was getting Rs. 150/- monthly salary. It is further submitted that while removing the respondent No. 1 from the employment of the petitioners, no one month notice or compensation in lieu of notice was not given, and therefore, the said action of the petitioners to...
Tag this Judgment!Both Residing at New j Type 28/16, Rang Hills Pune 411 020. Vs. the St ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
.:1. By this appeal, the appellants have challenged their conviction under section 323 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentence recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Pune on 14.8.1996 in Sessions Case No.379 of 1995 whereby learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 342, and 506 of I.P but the appellant No.1 Sonu was convicted for offence .C.punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I.for six months and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.300/, in default to suffer R.I. for one month, while appellant No.1 (Kanta Sonu Pival) was found guilty for offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. but instead of sentencing her to any punishment, she was directed to be released on her entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,000/ without surety and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year from the date of execution of personal bond. The prosecution case, briefly stated, ...
Tag this Judgment!Tukaram Govind Yadav Vs. State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
:1. Both these appeal and revision are preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 6.7.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.49 of 1996 whereby the learned trial Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code and directed the accused to suffer S.I. for one year and fine of Rs.300/ in default S.I. for one month. By the said order, considering the age of the accused, he was directed to be released under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. on giving a bond of good behaviour of one year in the sum of Rs.5000/ with a surety in the like amount.2. While the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.506 of 1996 challenges his conviction under Section 376 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code, the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No.29 of 1997 contended that the sentence imposed was inadequate considering the nature of offence held as proved by the learned trial Judge.3. B...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Rama Rangnath Tambe
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
:-1 This Writ Petition is filed, challenging the validity and legality of the Award passed in Reference (IDA) No. 25 of 1986 dated 20th November, 1990.The brief facts of the case are as under :-2 The respondent No. 1 herein filed Reference (IDA) No. 25 of 1986 before the Labour Court, praying therein to reinstatement, back- wages and for continuation of service in the employment of petitioner as a watchman. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that he was appointed as a watchman at Rajuri to look after plantation of the trees and to protect said plants. He was appointed on 11th August, 1980 and he was removed from service on 1st May, 1983. It is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that when he was removed from service he was getting Rs. 150/- monthly salary.It is further contended that while removing the respondent No. 1 from the employment of the petitioners, no one month notice or compensation in lieu of notice was given, and therefore, the said action of the petitioners to remove t...
Tag this Judgment!Seema D/O Suryakant Mitkari and ors. Vs. the Directorate of Technical ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
: 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.2 By the present petition, filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or directions to quash and set aside the order dated 13.8.2007, passed by respondent no.2 Divisional Caste Scrutiny Verification Committee, Aurangabad.3 The petitioner is a student pursuing education of Electrical Engineer in Mahatma Basaweshwar Education Societies College of Engineering at Ambejogai and claims to be belonging to the caste 'Lingader' notified as Scheduled Caste34 recognized under the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950.4 Respondent no.1 is the State of Maharashtra, represented through its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai and respondent no.2 is the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Verification Committee for SC, VJNT, OBC &...
Tag this Judgment!Kamrujama Abdul Rashid Sayyed Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
.:1. The appellant challenged validity and legality of the impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 955/1988 whereby the appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under section 304, Part II of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years. The learned trial Judge, however, recorded acquittal for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P Thus, the .C. appellant is challenging his conviction under section 304 Part II of I.P.C.2. It appears case of the prosecution that on 9.6.1988 at about 16.45 hours the accused was sitting in his pan shop situated adjacent to Gulshan Iran hotel at Musafeerkhana Bombay1. At that time, victim Lalita and her mother arrived at the pan shop of the accused. As a result of some talk between them, quarrel ensued and consequently the appellant used scissor which was readily available in the pan shop and assaulted Lalita on her chest. Lali...
Tag this Judgment!Ramu Harishchandra Bawane Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Prisons
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
:1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally.2. Petitioner is undergoing sentence for conviction in Central Prison, Nagpur. On his application, he has been granted furlough. He has been asked to furnish a surety having his ordinary residence in Maharashtra. This seems to have been done in the background that petitioner is domiciled of State of Gujarat. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order directing that the surety should be of a person who is an ordinary resident of Maharashtra.3. We had directed learned APP to take instructions from Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and suggest the modalities which can be adopted in the case of present nature to avoid insistence of surety of the nature ordered.4. Learned APP has tendered an Affidavit-in-Reply. thThis affidavit accompanies copy of Govt. Circular dated 16 December, 2008.It is prescribed in Direction No.6 contained in this Circular that whenever the prisoner hails from other State, a surety from State of Maharashtra be a...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkamal Talkies and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
(Per B.R. Gavai, J.) :1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the resolutions passed by the respondent no.3 / Municipal Corporation, dated 8th February 2010 and 20th February 2010, thereby fixing the rate of theatre tax at the rate of Rs. 100/- per show, in so far as cinema theatres are concerned.3. It is not in dispute, that all the petitioners before this Court are running cinema theatres. It is the contention of the petitioners, that by the impugned resolutions, the rate of tax has been increased from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 100/- i.e. almost seven times. It is also the contention of the petitioners, that in view of Section 149 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "BPMC Act"), it is not permissible for the Corporation to levy theatre tax unless rules are framed in that regard and a prior approval of the State Government is taken for the said rules.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji Kundalika Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
.:1. The challenge in this appeal is limited to conviction of the appellants under sections 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara on 17.8.1996 in Sessions Case No. 213/1992 whereby the appellants were acquitted for offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of I.P However, they were found guilty for an offence punishable .C. under section 498A of I.P.C. and they were sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.500/, payable by each of them, and in default to suffer R.I.for one month each, by each of them.2. Advocate Mr B.B.Rajput who appears on record remained absent at final hearing of this appeal. It is the duty of Advocate accepting criminal brief to attend the case at final hearing. Negligence in this regard may amount to professional misconduct. Relavant observation of the Supreme Court in S. J. Chaudhary vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1984 SC 618 wherein it has bee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »