Mumbai Court February 2011 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.
Hasan Mohamed Kadar Badshah Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
ORAL :-1. Heard rival submissions on earlier date on the present criminal appeal preferred by the sole appellant-accused challenging his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2. By the order dated 2.7.2004, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.256 of 2000. Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for three months was awarded against the appellant- accused.3. Prior to discussing the only submission mentioned in the present appeal as to alter the conviction from the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. to the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C.,the case of the prosecution, in brief, and certain admitted position can be narrated, as under:4. Daughter of present appellant-accused married with the deceased and they had o...
Rajesh Jaswantlal Solanki Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
.1. Both these Applications are filed by the original complainant for cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons, who are respondent No.1 in these two Applications by orders dated 1.2.2011 and 3.2.2011. 2. The implementation of the impugned orders was stayed by this Court and with consent of the learned Counsel, these Applications were taken up for hearing urgently.3. To state in brief, the accused No.1 Ravindranath Shelatkar and the complainant/applicant had some rivalry. According to the complainant, accused No.1 Ravindranath hatched a conspiracy with accused Rajendra Bhosle, who was a police officer and some other police officers of Dongri Police Station, to falsely implicate the complainant in a case under the NDPS Act. As per the conspiracy, the accused persons planted 340 grams of heroin in the car of the complainant and arrested him. Accused Rajendra Bhosle registered Crime No.4/2004 under Sections 8(c) and 21 of the NDPS Act against the applicant and he was in custody ...
Bhagirthibai W/O Suklal Patil and ors. Vs. Vishwas Fakira Patil and or ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
J U D G M E N T :1 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2 This Second Appeal is directed by the appellants i.e. original plaintiffs against the judgment and order dated 15.1.1987, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 373 of 1981, allowing the said appeal and thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parola on 31.8.1981 in Regular Civil Suit No. 46 of 1975. The appellants herein are the legal heirs of the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the legal heirs of the defendant. The parties are herein after referred as per their original status i.e. 'the plaintiff' and 'the defendant'. 3 The plaintiff filed the suit before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parola for the possession of the suit house and for retransferring the suit property to him. The plaintiff came with the case that the Grampanchayat House No. 214, situated at village Ratna Pimpri, Taluka Parola,...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Maruti Ramchandra Mas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
ORAL JUDGEMENT :1. This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 29th November, 1997 passed in Application (PGA) No.12 of 1995 by the Controlling Authority as well as the order dated 22nd July, 1999 passed in Appeal (PGA) No.2 of 1998 by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Both the Authorities have directed the petitioner to pay gratuity to the respondent in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (for short "the Act").2. The respondent was employed as a "Store Keeper" with the petitioner. He worked for 36 years. When he retired, he was not paid the entire amount of gratuity payable to him under the said Act. This was because, according to the petitioner, while working as a "Store Keeper", the respondent had caused a loss to the petitioner to the tune of `26,477.75. Being aggrieved by the action of the petitioner, the respondent preferred an application under the Act before the Controlling Authority.3. That application was opposed by the petitioner by contend...
Arvind Ananda Bandal and ors. Vs. the State of Maharahstra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
ORAL :1. This appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr. P.C. is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Islampur, District Sangli in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2005, wherein the appellants came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and all of them have been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer RI for three months.2. As per the prosecution, accused no.1 Arvind is the husband of the deceased Kusum and accused no.2 is the son of accused no.1 and the deceased. Whereas accused no.3 is the younger brother of accused no.1. The accused are the residents of village Waghwadi and the houses of accused nos.1 and 3 are located next to each other, in the vasti away from the village and attached to their agricultural land. In addition to accused no.2, the accused no.1 begotten three daughters from the deceased, namely, Shubhangi, Gauri...
Ramdas Sakharam Pawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
ORAL 1 Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. The Learned APP supports the Application for cancellation of bail.2 This Application is filed by the First informant and cousin of the deceased Santosh Pawar for cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.2-Raju Patil, who is Accused No.2 in Crime No.50 of 2007 registered at Kulgaon police station under Sections 302, 307, 324, 147, 148, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 427 and Section 4, 27(B) of the Arms Act.3 According to the Applicant, on 30-10-2007 one Bandu Chairate of Talegaon called deceased Santosh Pawar to see particular piece of land. Accordingly on that day after 3.00 p.m. the Applicant- Ramdas Pawar, his cousin Santosh Pawar and Dattatray Pawar went to Badlapur and met one Bhalchandra Bangur. Said Bhalchandra Bangur asked the first informant and others to go to Boradpada, where his brother was present to show the land. Accordingly they left Badalapur to go to Boradpada. On the way near the Badlapur Railway Station, Bandu ...
Sau. Vijaya Narendra Kene Alias Vijaya Gangadhar Bhope Vs. Smt. Kamala ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
ORAL :1. Heard Advocate Mr. Bajaj for Petitioner, Advocate Mr. Patil for Respondent No.4 and Advocate Mr. Thorat for Respondent Nos.2A, and 3.2. With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.3. Short question which arises for determination is, whether in execution proceedings, after death of one of the judgment debtors, succession to her property amongst her legal heirs can also be gone into and a decree for partition, as passed qua her share in joint family property, can also be executed by working out shares interse of her legal representatives for separate possession thereof.4. According to Advocate Mr. Bajaj this exercise must be undertaken in a separate suit as it is not covered under section 47 C.P.Code. In order to point out prejudice caused to petitioner/ judgment debtor, he states that the petitioner is also one of the legal heirs of said deceased judgment debtor and as per understanding with her other legal heirs, as he arranged for and prosecuted the legal challenge, ...
Sanjay Shriram Gondchar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
ORAL [Per A.H. Joshi, J.]:1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally.2. This is a Letter-Petition.3. Petitioner wants earlier release upon getting set- off under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. For this purpose, he relies upon the ratio as laid down in case of State of Maharashtra & another v. Najakat Ali Mubarak Ali [(2001) 6 SCC 311].4. Heard learned APP Mr. T.A. Mirza and perused the Letter-Petition as well as the said Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court.5. Admitted facts are as follows:- [a] The petitioner was under trial prisoner in a case in which he was acquitted. [b] Petitioner was not arrested, and was not an under trial prisoner in the case which has led to conviction.6. Petitioner says that it was the duty of Police to arrest him, though he was already under arrest, and relies on the fiction that he be treated as arrested , and by applying the deeming fiction, the set-off be granted to him towards the imprisonment which he has suffere...
Abdul Jabbar S/O Abdul Razzaq and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
:1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge at Nanded in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1997 dated 01st December, 1999.2. The prosecution story in brief is as under : It is the case of prosecution that P.W. 1 Shaikh Ainu is resident of village Rahur which is about 20 k.m. from Mahur in Kinwat taluka. Shaihin now deceased was eldest daughter of Shaikh Ainu. Her marriage was solemnized with one Mr. Abdul Aziz i. e. original accused No. 2 on 12th April, 1996. In the marriage a golden ring of 5 gms, certain utensils, furniture and a cash amount of Rs. 5,000/ for purchasing garments were given to the Abdul Aziz as per the custom prevailing in their community. It is the case of the prosecution that, there was no agreement as such as to what was to be given to Abdul Aziz by the complainant in the marriage. After marriage Shaheen went to the matrimonial house at Mahur. It is the case of prosecution that al...
State Bank of India Vs. Shri Sagar S/O Pramod Deshmukh and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
Judgment :1. Both these matters are admitted and since the same arise out of the proceedings of Special Civil Suit No.52 of 2010, they are heard together finally though both the matters challenge different orders. 2. Civil Revision Application No.33 of 2010 challenges the order dated 23-2-2010 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, rejecting the application Exhibit 17 filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code in Special Civil Suit No.52 of 2010 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it is barred by the provisions of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). Appeal against Order No.38 of 2010 challenges the order passed below Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No.52 of 2010 by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, allowing the application for grant of temporary injunction restrain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »