Mumbai Court February 2011 Judgments
Bhima S/O Goroba Sontakke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
ORAL :1. This appeal is filed by the accused appellant herein, challenging the judgment and order dated 30081999 passed by the learned Extra Joint Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No. 132 of 1998.2. One Mr. Sudhakar Kishanrao Lohgaonkar, resident of Dapegaon, Taluka Ausa, District Latur lodged the complaint on 24111997 with Killari Police Station stating therein that he is presently residing at village Dapegaon for his service purpose. His elder daughter Saraswati is studying in 10th Standard in Vidya Niketan Middle School at Jawalga (Pomadevi). It was further stated in the complaint that, one Bhima Goroba Sontakke and his parents, one Ramabai Tukaram Kamble, all residents of Dapegaon have kidnapped his daughter Saraswati with intent to perform her marriage with Bhima. His daughter was induced and enticed under the pretext of marriage while taking her out of his legal guardianship. The complainant tried to search for his daughter but he could not trace out her.On 23111997 he came...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjaykumar S/O Kishanlal JaIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
This appeal is filed by the accused appellant herein, challenging the judgment and order dated 29112001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Shahada in Other Sessions Case No.16 of 2000 (Old O.S.C.No. 258 of 1994).2. The case of the prosecution can be briefly narrated as under:Sukhlal Ahire, father of the complainant Sudam Ahire, who is now no more, used to sit in front of the shop of the complainant Sudam Ahire and carry on business of boot polishing. The complainant Sudam Ahire belongs to cobbler community which is recognised as a scheduled caste. All the accused belong to Jain community which does not fall either under Scheduled caste or under Scheduled tribe. It is further alleged that on 25051994 at about 1500 hours on the Main Road at village Khapar, the accused NO. 3 Sanjaykumar drove his vehicle through the articles used for the boot polish business belonging to Sukhlal Ahire and thereby caused damage of more than Rs.50/. While said Suklal Ahire wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Bandu Kakade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
ORAL :1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th June, 1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 285/98 thereby convicting the appellant / accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years.2. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant / accused Ashok is real brother of the victim Prabhakar. Ashok was addicted to liquor and did nothing to earn his livelihood. As he was heavily indebted he sold his house to his brother Prabhakar. There used to be frequent quarrels between Ashok and Prabhakar on this count. On 9.5.1998 at about 3.30 p.m., accused Ashok and his friend accused No.2 Narayan sat with Prabhakar in front of house of one Jaiswal. They beat up Prabhakar and after Prabhakar died, lifted the dead body and placed it in Prabhakar's house. On the next day village Kotval Narayan Dandge gave a report to police station Ajintha whereupon an offence was registered at abo...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sushma Rameshwar Ubale Vs. Mr. Rameshwar Keshao Ubale
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
ORAL 1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Buldana on 10.12.2010 allowing an application filed by the respondent under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by him for grant of a decree for divorce. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 09.12.1993 and in the year 2003, the respondent filed a petition for grant of a decree of divorce. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner had deserted him since Holi Festival of the year 1994 and, therefore, he was entitled for grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner filed the written statement and denied the claim of the respondent. It was stated in the written statement that the respondent had desert...
Tag this Judgment!Hidayatali S/O Mehaboobali Sayyed Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
: 1. Heard Shri Dhore, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Mehadia, learned counsel for the respondent. Admit. By consent the appeal is heard finally forthwith.2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the order of the Industrial Court dated 05.09.2005 came to be upheld. By order dated 05.09.2005, the Industrial Court, Chandrapur, set aside the judgment dated 28.10.2003 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint ULP No. 136 of 1998, granting reinstatement with continuity but without back wages.3. The brief facts of this case are as under : The appellant was working as a Bus Conductor with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. On 21.07.1994, the appellant was on duty as a Bus Conductor on the bus plying from Aheri to Sironcha. The Bus came to checked by the checking squad at Rangaiyapalli and it was found that 21 passengers were travelling in the bus without ticket. An enquiry from th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Samina W/O HafizuddIn Siddiqui and ors. Vs. Sk. Saleem S/O Sk. Me ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
J U D G M E N T :1 The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 18.9.1996, rendered by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 226 of 1992, which has been filed by the original claimants for the enhancement of compensation. The appellants herein are the original claimants i.e. the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Hafizuddin; whereas respondent no.1 Shaikh Saleem Sk. Mehboob is the driver of offending vehicle Matador, bearing registration No. MH20/A3638 and respondent no. 2, namely Raosaheb Kadam is the owner of the said Matador. Respondent no.3New India Insurance Company is the insurance company of the said Matador, however, respondent no.4 Ravan is the ownercumdriver of the motor cycle and the deceased was the pillion rider, to which the offending vehicle Matador dashed, and respondent no.5 is the Oriental Insurance Company i.e. the insurance company of the said motor cycle, bearing registratio...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Madhusudan Mukharjee and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
: 1 An application for modification of the order dated 2.5.2008 passed by this court for granting bail to the appellant-accused in the present appeal brought to the fore core issues in the present appeal. 2 The appellant-accused believes that he is having excellent case in the appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned 10th Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai convicting the appellant-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860 along with two other co-accused and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a find of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to suffer R.I. for two years each in Sessions Case No.495 of 2006 on 9.11.2006, and, therefore, this court after having appreciated this aspect had released him on bail on 2.5.2008. However, he continue to languish in jail, for his inability to furnish a surety as required and thus could not avail of the bail order. It has been further pointed out that the records and proceedings are...
Tag this Judgment!Ankush S/O Laxman Gade and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
ORAL :1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 29.06.1999 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No. 96/1997.2. At the outset, the counsel for the appellant submitted that, the appellants are only aggrieved for convicting them for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. They are convicted U/Sec. 235(2) of the Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ each and in default of payment of fine the appellants are directed to undergo further S. I. for one week (Seven days).3. The facts are extensively narrated in the impugned judgment from para 2 to 5 and same are not repeated herein.4. The counsel for the appellant submitted that, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained U/Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code, since there is no any corroborative piece of evidence to sustain the conviction. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Laxmi Anant Paranjpe Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
ORAL : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader at great length.2. The petitioner, who is a retired parttime lecturer in the third respondentILS Law College, has approached this Court with a prayer that the Resolution passed by the Government in depriving the parttime lecturers the benefit of pension and gratuity is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.2.1. The petitioner was appointed on 20th June, 1983, as a Lecturer on parttime basis in the third respondent Law College which is affiliated to the University of Poona. The petitioner, after putting about 27 years of service as a parttime lecturer, has raised a point that even parttime lecturers also should be given proportionate pensionary benefits. The question which is raised by the petitioner is that the Resolution of the Government of Maharashtra depriving the parttime lecturers from the benefit of pension and gratuity is arbitrary an...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar S/O Balchandra Bodade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
ORAL :1. This appeal is filed challenging judgment and order of the Special Judge at Aurangabad in Special Case No. 01/1993. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant herein was convicted U/Sec. 248(2) of the Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and he is sentenced to suffer R. I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ in default to suffer further R. I. for three month. He is further convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and he is sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default to suffer further R. I. for six months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under : It is alleged by the prosecution that accused had accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 130/ for doing official act of issuing ration card to the complainant. It is case of prosecution that, accused is public servant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »