Mumbai Court January 2011 Judgments
Ujwala W/O.Sonyabapu Bhujade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The appellant has questioned the correctness and legality of her conviction for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of The IPC, for which she was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.250/, in default to suffer SI for 7 days. She was also convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 309 of The IPC, for which she was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.250/, in default to suffer SI for 3 days in Sessions Case No.279/2007, by The Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge Aurangabad, vide judgment and order dated 09/04/2009.2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal can be summarized as follows :a) On 24/11/2006, MLC report was received in Vaijapur Police Station from Rural Hospital, Vaijapur by Nilkanth Damodar Patil. It was a wireless message, accordingly A.D. was registered vide A.D.No.24/2006, and inquiry was entrusted to him. Accordingly, he sent Head Constable Shri.Jadhav to draw inquest panchnama and to collect the report of the post mortem exam...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Mumbai Cricket Association Vs. Pramod G. Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1 Rule. Respondent waives service. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith.2 A short but interesting question of law arises for determination in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is directed against an order dated 15th October 2010 delivered by the 12th Labour Court, Bombay in Reference (IDA) No.364 of 2004. The question of law can be framed thus: "Whether two distinct category of employees i.e one suspended pending departmental enquiry and other facing a de-novo inquiry in Court in a reference challenging his dismissal, can be equated, so as to permit the latter to claim subsistence allowance till conclusion of the reference u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?"3 In other words, can such employee be held to be suspended pending enquiry into charges of misconduct so as to enable him to claim subsistence allowance.4 A few facts need to be set out to decide the above framed question. The respondent was employed as higher grade clerk/typi...
Tag this Judgment!Gyanchand Verma Vs. Sudhakar B. Pujari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. I have gone through the judgment prepared by my esteemed Brother, Hon. Bhangale, J., but for the reasons which I shall shortly indicate, I am unable to agree with his erudite opinion on the points in issue. Consequently, I do not also agree with the proposed final decision as, in my opinion, the present writ petition ought to succeed.2. The principal question which arises for our consideration in this case is: whether naming any person as suspect in the police report/charge-sheet filed under Section 173(2) and more so under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.' or 'Code') is just, fair, proper and is in consonance with the procedure established by law? The incidental question is: whether on account of naming of any person as suspect in the police report/charge-sheet, it has the inevitable effect of sullying the reputation of that person irrespective of the nature of pending criminal action?3. The broad facts which have given rise to ...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Sajal Kumar Mitra and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Petitioners by this Petition are seeking an order directing that the Petitioners may be released on bail on furnishing cash bail under section 445 of the Criminal Procedure Code without sureties or alternatively they may be released on bail on their own bonds without sureties.2. During pendency of this Petition, Petitioners were released on bail and, therefore, this Petition practically has become infructuous. Shri Adhik Shirodkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, however, urged that though this Petition has become infructuous, this Court may consider difficulties faced by the Petitioners who are residents of other cities and who are not in a position to obtain local sureties and, secondly, though there is a provision that the accused can be released on furnishing cash bail initially, such orders are not passed, with the result the Petitioners who were high ranking officers of a Private Limited Company had to remain in bail though bail was granted a...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir Annaji Choudhary and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. All accused persons were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307, 324, 336, 427, 506 read with Section 149 or 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 read with Section 37 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16 to 25, and 28 to 30 for commission of the offences charged and sentenced them as detailed below:- For the offence punishable under Section/s :[a] 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, for Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default, Simple Imprisonment for six months each.[b] 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, for Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, Simple Imprisonment for three months each.[c] 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, for Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each.[d] 336 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, for Rigorous Imprisonment for one month eac...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman S/O. Tulshiram Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The appellants have questioned the correctness and legality of their conviction u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of The IPC, for which they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and for the offence punishable u/s. 201 r/w. 34 of The IPC, they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years in Sessions Case No.10/2008 vide judgment and order dated 05/06/2009 by The Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed.2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision in this appeal can be summarized as follows :a) On 09/01/2008, on receipt of telephone message from one Vishwanath Manikrao Jadhav (P.W.No.15) of village Pohandul that one Tulshiram and his two sons, the appellants before the Court, have assaulted one Haribhau Jadhav and Haribhau is missing in Sonpeth Police Station, A.P.I. Dipak Dnyanoba Shinde (P.W.No.17) proceeded to village Pohandul at 12.30 noon after effecting necessary entries in the station diary. At Pohandul, he visited field of one Ankush Jadhav. Then he drew spot panchnam...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Kashiram Nathu Mohite and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This Appeal is preferred by original respondents State of Maharashtra against the judgment and award dated 6.1.90 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad at Alibag in LAR. No.9 of 1984.3. Cross objections were preferred by original claimants claiming enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land at the rate of Rs.500/- per Are.4. A few facts of the matter are as under:5. Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act) dated 12.10.78 for acquiring respondents original claimants land from Village Boris Taluka Alibag, District Raigad for gas based fertilizer plant at Thal to be set up by Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., Bombay.6. Thereafter, Special Land Acquisition Officer issued Notification under section 6 of the said Act dated 4.11.78. After following due process of law Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award dated 9.3.81 awarding compensation i...
Tag this Judgment!M/S D.S.Mujumdar and K.M.JaIn Vs. Faizpur Municipal Council, Faizpur
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
J U D G M E N T : 1 The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.1.1994, rendered by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in Special Civil Suit No. 10 of 1991, more particularly in respect of the finding recorded by the said learned Judge on Issue Nos. 3 and 3-A thereby granting interest only at the rate of 9 per cent per annum to the plaintiff instead of 18 per cent per annum on the amount due as claimed by the plaintiff/appellant.2 The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant, namely Faizpur Municipal Council, represented through its Chief Officer, Taluka Yawal, District Jalgaon, whereas the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm. The parties are referred hereinafter as per their original status i.e. 'the plaintiff'' and 'the defendant'.3 The defendant Municipal Council had to give some work of construction of building for Union Bank of India and also for the office of Municipal Council and Meeting Hal...
Tag this Judgment!Siddarth S/O Narayan Kamble Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
:1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of the Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 191/1994 dated 21st May, 1999.2. The prosecution story in brief is as under :The deceased Panchasheela was residing along with her parents in village Ashta, in Kinwat taluka of Nanded district. Nivratti (P.W.-2) complainant is the brother of deceased Panchasheela. It is the case of the prosecution that, when Panchasheela was taking education at Kinwat four accused use to pay visit to her room and tease her. They use to write letters to her, however, said letters were destroyed by the deceased fifteen days prior to date of incident. It is further case of the prosecution that, Panchasheela received one letter, alleged to have been written by one of the accused in which Panchasheela was given threats that, if at all she marries to any other person, than the writer of the said letter, her married life would be rendered miserable and difficult, because...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Chand S/O Shaikh Garibshah Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
:-1 This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 4.9.1999 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 114 of 1996 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. And sentenced him to suffer R.I. For three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- i.d to suffer R.I. For six months.2 The prosecution case, in brief, is as under;-The accused No.1 is husband of accused No.2. Complainant is brother of accused No.1 and deceased is daughter of complainant. The complainant, accused No.1 have other brothers namely Shaikh Gani and Shaikh Ismail. Their father Garibshaha had 8 acres of agricultural land at village Jamgaon. After the death of father, brothers started residing separately and each is cultivating his two acres land and they are also residing in their respective shares by constructing a hut.It is also the case of prosecution that there is common well in the lands of four brothers and eac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »