Mumbai Court February 2011 Judgments
Mahendra Baliram Kamble Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
ORAL :01. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 03rd March, 1999 in Sessions Case No. 205 of 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, thereby convicting the appellant/Mahendra Baliram Kamble for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and awarding him sentence to suffer R. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default to pay fine to suffer further R. I. for one month. However, the appellant/accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code.02. The brief facts of the case are as under :Mahadeo Bhagappa Dupargude lodged F.I.R. Exhibit 13 against the accused contending that deceased Vandana was his daughter. Her marriage was performed to accused in May 1995. Accused was driver residing at Thane. Vandana was cohabiting at the house of accused at Keshegaon. Distance between Keshegaon and native village of complainant is about 5 kilometers. When accused was working as a driver at Th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Premalata Subhash Nabaria Vs. Shri Paras Shantilal Kankaria
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
ORAL :1. This appeal is filed challenging judgment and order dated 16th November, 2009 passed by the 6th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar discharging the accused i. e. respondent herein in summons case.2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the appeal are as under :The appellant herein filed private complaint alleging offence punishable U/Sec. 403, 423 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar. The complainant in her complaint stated that she is conducting the business of depositors and consultancy. On 30th May 2000 the husband of the complainant lost his bag containing some forms and blank cheques with signs thereon bearing Nos. 79036, 89741, 123506, 138398, 138399, 1383400, 62388, 62397 on S.T. stand to Urban Bank Road at Ahmednagar. Immediately a complaint to that effect was lodged at Kotwali police station and the matter was registered as Missing Register No. 200/2000.3. Nagar Urban Bank was intimated to stop the payme...
Tag this Judgment!Sow Laxmibai W/O Marotirao Savant Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
:1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/original accused against the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.02.1999 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 278/1995 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable U/Sec. 366A of the Indian Penal Code.2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :Prosecutrix Sushila and accused No. 3 Laxmibai are the resident of the same locality i.e. Rahul Nagar, Aurangabad. Accused Laxmibai used to reside adjoining to the house of prosecutrix Sushila at Rahul Nagar and both of them were acquainted with each other. Both these ladies used to work as labourer and prior to the incident for about 8/10 days, they used to go for labour work in the Nath Seeds Company, Aurangabad. It is further alleged that, accused No. 1 Dadarao @ Mohan and accused No. 2 Raju Rajput were also working as watchman in the Nath Seeds Company at the relevant time. The prosecutrix Sushila, therefore, got acquainted w...
Tag this Judgment!Miya Khan Bhure Khan and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
J U D G M E N T : 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.7.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Session Trial No. 15 of 2003, convicting the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six month, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellants2. SUBMISSIONS :In support of appeal, Mr.Kasat, learned counsel for the appellants, made the following submissions : (a) the trial Court committed serious error of law in applying the last seen theory contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the following decisions -(i) State of U.P. v. Shyam Behari & anr. - (2009) SCC 548.(ii) Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 483.(iii) K. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala (2000) 10 SCC 365.(iv) Ashok Yadav & ors. v. State of M.P. - (1996) 11 SCC 618.(v) Shera Singh v. S...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Narmadabai W/O Venkoba Kalyankar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
J U D G M E N T :1 The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in Land Acquisition Reference No. 188 of 1989 on 13.8.1993. The appellants are the original respondents i.e. the acquiring body; whereas the respondent herein is the original claimant, who had filed the Reference before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, being aggrieved by the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Land Acquisition Reference No. 188 of 1989.2 The claimant is the owner and was in possession of the land Gat No. 326 of village Loha Mandava, Taluka Hadgaon. Appellant no. 2 herein acquired land admeasuring 1 Hectare 44 Ares out of Gat No. 326 of village Loha Mandava as per notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for minor irrigation tank purpose. Appellant no.2 herein took the possession of the claimant's land at the time of notification dated 13.5.1...
Tag this Judgment!Jankiram Pandharinath Thorat Vs.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
ORAL 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 18th of August, 1992 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.5/1988, by which the judgment and decree dated 30-11-1987 passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.198/1987 came to be set aside.2. The above Second Appeal raises the following substantial questions of law :-(1) Whether the First Appellate Court committed the error in holding that the plaintiff-appellant failed to prove that the time consumed in the earlier proceeding is required to be excluded while computing the period of limitation (2) Whether the First Appellate Court wrongly held that as per the provisions of the Limitation Act, the proceedings before the Labour Court, are not civil proceedings and hence, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of the said provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that the time consumed in that Court cannot be excluded ?3. The facts in a nutshell can be stated thus :- That, the plaintiff was a ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Videocon International Ltd. and anr.Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
: 1. Petitioners are manufacturers of colour TVs, Videos and other electronic items. Petitioners import interalia Colour Picture Tubes (CPT) and Video Tape Deck Mechanism (VTDM) for manufacturing electronic items. CPTs and VTDMs were listed in Appendix 6, List 8, Part-I at Sr.Nos. 821(5) and 821(79) respectively. By transfer, as permissible, Petitioners purchased Additional Licenses all dated prior to 21-3-1989 and endorsed under Para 215 of AM-88-91 Policy permitting imports of items listed under Appendix 6, List 8, Part-I as on the date of issue of the licenses.2. On 21-3-1989 Public Notice No.109 deleted the items CPT and VTDM from Appendix 6, List 8, Part-I. On 28-5-1990, as the Petitioners were importing CPTs and VTDMs against the said licenses and since the same were allowed clearance by the Customs, the Respondent No.4- Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports issued abeyance order with the show cause notice to the Petitioners asking the Petitioners to show cause why the Peti...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivram S/O Bhikaji Pawar and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
:1. This is an appeal filed by the State,challenging the judgment and order dated 10051999 passed by the Special Judge, Jalna in Special Case No. 25 of 1993, by which respondent Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2), read with Section 13(1), 12 read with Section 7 and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The charge against accused Nos. 1 and 2 respondents herein was that on 04031993, accused No.1 attempted to obtain Rs.1000/ for himself as a gratification from Shobhabai Nandkishore Mittal resident of Jalna to show her favour while doing official duty to prosecute her application in her favour against Rickshaw driver. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 accepted the amount and committed the said offence.3. The allegations against the accused were that the accused were attached to Sadar Bazar Police Station and accused No. 2 was working as Police Head Constable at the ...
Tag this Judgment!Piem Hotels Limited and anr. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
ORAL :1. The Petitioner No.1 is a Company incorporated on 13.3.1968 registered under Companies Act. It runs a hotel at Cuffe Parade known as President Hotel. The Taj President Hotel has been registered with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and has been allotted a Code number for the purposes of payment of provident fund contributions. Petitioner No.1 set up a new 3 star hotel at Nasik in 1996 namely Petitioner No.2. This hotel was run with a separate identity according to the petitioners. Petitioner No.2 issued its first invoice on 20.3.1996 i.e. the date on which it was established. It was placed on the approved list of the Department of Tourism on 21.1.1997. It obtained a licence to deal with foreign currency on 7.6.1996. Petitioner No.2 was registered under The Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948 w.e.f. 28.6.1996. The Health Department also issued a separate licence to this Hotel on 18.3.1996. A separate registration for the purposes of Sales Tax was obtained on 17.4.19...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayak S/O Yeshwantrao Junghare Vs. Balu @ Dhanraj S/O Narayan Jungha ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
ORAL :1. This Revision is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati who, by the impugned judgment and order dated 5.3.2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 57/1997 decided to confirm the judgment and order which was passed by JMFC ( Court No.4) Amravati on 11.1.1997 in Criminal Case No. 317/1990 for offence punishable under sections 326, 448 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC"). The learned trial Magistrate had convicted Balu @ Dhanraj Narayan Junghare and Bhupat Narayan Junghare for offence punishable under section 326 read with section 34 IPC and each of them were sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 3,000/ each, in default, to undergo S.I. for three months by each of them. The accused were also found guilty under sections 448 read with section 34 IPC and were directed to suffer RI for three months and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 300/ in default to undergo SI for one m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »