Mumbai Court March 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.
Chandrasen S/O Kisanrao Chauhan Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
:-1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.03.1999, passed by the learned Special Judge, Beed, in Special Case No.55 of 1991 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- I/D R.I. for nine months. The appellant-accused is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs.4000/- I/D to suffer R.I. for one year.2 The prosecution case, in brief, is as under;-The complainant Laxman Vishnu Are is a Kotwal. 15 days prior to the incident in question i.e. one Sunday evening the persons viz. Rajabhau Kale, Hanumant Shinde, Kacharu Kadam in all 6-7 had assaulted the complainant's mother, wife and 2 sons. At that time, the complainant was near Hanuman te...
Kiran Kumar K. Khanda Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. On the basis of the statement recorded by Shri Pramod Shamrao Shirke, Police Constable No.030760, D.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai, on 18th June, 2010 C.R. No.176 of 2010 came to be registered on the same day with the L.T. Marg Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 489-A, 489-B and 489-C of I.P.C. against 3 accused namely Assabul Masakalin Shaikh, Kiran Kumar Kanhyalal Khadra and Mohammed Tonic Moh. Asidulla Shaikh.2. The first accused i.e. Shri Assabul Masakalin Shaikh filed Criminal Appilcation No.4744 of 2010 for bail before this Court (Single Bench) and the same was allowed on 22nd October, 2010. Accused No.2 also approached this Court for bail in Criminal Application No.5343 of 2010 and relied upon the order passed in Criminal Appication No.4744 of 2010 on 22nd October, 2010 thereby releasing the accused No.1 on bail and it was prayed that by following the principle of parity the accused No.2 was also required to be granted bail. The Single Bench hearing the Criminal...
Smt. Alka Chandewar Vs. Sovind Nathuji Chandewar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. This is an application under section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 .2. The parties are husband and wife. They carried on business in the firm, name and style of M/s. Saraswati Developers on the terms and conditions contained in a deed of partnership dated 7th September, 1994. Clause 20 thereof reads as under :"20. In the event of any dispute or differences that may arise at to the constructions or interpretation of any of the terms of this Deed, the same shall be referred to the Arbitration under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Each of the parties shall appoint the arbitrator of their choice who in turn shall appoint an umpire. The umpire shall enter upon the reference and pronounce and award upon the arbitration. Once the award is pronounced the same is conclusive and binding upon the parties hereto."3. Disputes and differences have arisen between the parties. There are other proceedings also between them. The applicant, by her advocate's letter...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Tatyaba Bajirao Jadhav and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
:1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/State challenging the judgment and order dated 31st May, 1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad in Regular Criminal Case No. 47 of 1996, thereby acquitting the accused/respondents from commission of crime U/Sec. 452, 326, 324, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under : The complainant Gangadhar @ Bhaurao Thorat is resident of village Muddalwadi, Tq. Paithan. In the year 1991 he sold the land of his son to the son of accused No. 1 Tatyaba. At that time there was encumbrance on the said land and land was indebted to society and Land Development Bank. One Ankush Jadhav was chairman of the said Society. On 09.04.1996 in the morning said Chairman approached the complainant and informed that accused No. 1 was insisting to refund the amount to him (accused No. 1) which amount was deducted from the payment of sugarcane of accused No. 1. Chairman...
Vijaykumar S/O. Motilal Hirakhanwala Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
ORAL : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Learned AGP waives notice for respondent No.1. Mr. Munde, Advocate waives notice for respondent No.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties2] The question that falls for our consideration in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is as follows :- "Whether the reservation has lapsed by reason of inaction on the part of the planning authorities under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ( for short, "the MRTP Act") to take steps within a period of six months from the date of service of the notice of purchase, as stipulated by Section 127 of the MRTP Act. "3] Brief facts, sans unnecessary details, for deciding the question raised in this petition are that the petitioner is owner of lands bearing Survey No. 386 admeasuring 2.78 H and Survey No. 389 admeasuring 1.23 H, situate within the limits of Municipal Council, Jalna. These lands are contiguous lands together admeasuring 4....
U.S.A. Cable Networks and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
: 1. The petitioners have pressed for three broad reliefs by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The first relief is to quash F.I.R. No. II-106/10 dated 6th July, 2010 registered at Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar, District Thane. The second relief is to direct respondent No. 3 to forthwith remove the seal put by the Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar, on the control room of the petitioners on 6th July, 2010. The consequential relief claimed by the petitioners is to direct respondent No. 3 to compensate the petitioners in the sum of Rs.1 crore on account of deprivation of their fundamental rights due to sealing of the control room of the petitioners on 6th July, 2010, which resulted in completely closing down the business of the petitioners. 2. Insofar as the second relief is concerned, the petitioners had simultaneously moved the lower Court for the same relief. It is not in dispute that the lower Court has allowed the said application preferred by ...
John Vasant Khandagale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
:1. The appellant filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by VII Addl. sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.178/1988 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and was also convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.200/-.2. To state in brief, the prosecution case is that deceased Tai @ Urenica, daughter of PW-6 Vinayak and PW-7 Babanbai, was married to the accused- appellant about 5 years before her death. She always used to make complaint before her parents and sister PW-8 Margaret about the demands of money by her husband and quarrels on that count. On 18.12.1987 at about 1.30 a.m. her dead body with number of stab and incised wounds was found near I.O.W. office at Kalyan. Police on patrolling duty found the dead body and after enquiry, her identity was fixed. Immediately thereafter, inquest panchnama was drawn...
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Shri Nimba Jagannath Tambo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
:1. The order impugned in the present petition has been passed by the Industrial Court on 2.9.1999 in revision application (ULP) No.152 of 1997 confirming the order passed by the Labour Court in complaint (ULP) No.145 of 1990. The Labour Court had declared that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practices under Item 1(b), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act by terminating the services of Respondent No.1. The petitioner was directed to reinstate Respondent No.1 in service with continuity and full backwages from 7.8.1990 i.e. the date of filing of the complaint till realisation. The Labour Court further directed that Respondent No.1 would not be entitled to any backwages from the date of dismissal i.e. 5.4.1989 till he filed a complaint on 7.8.1990.2. The petition arises in the following manner:The petitioner which is the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation finances small scale industries in the State. The service conditions of its employees are governed by the ...
Smt.Sindhu Khandu Satpute Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
ORAL :1. Heard rival arguments on this Appeal preferred by the Appellant/sole Accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 2nd April, 1990 in Sessions Case No.277/1989 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. 2. The Appellant/Accused was charged for committing murder of her own child aged about four months at the early hours of 21st April, 1989. By the impugned judgment and order the Appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the conviction, the Appellant/Accused preferred present Appeal.3. Learned Advocate Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan is appointed under Legal Aid Scheme to defend the Appellant in the present matter.4. Prior to discussing the rival submissions and evidence led before the Sessions Court, the case of the prosecution and certain admitted position can be summarized as under : 4A. The Appellant/Accused, a young girl of about...
Shantaram S/O. Waghu Sonawane Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
:1. Shri. V. B. Patil for respondent No. 1/Caveator Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jalgaon (APMC) has raised preliminary objection. He invites attention to Rule 102 (2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 to urge that remedy of filing second appeal before the State Government is prescribed thereunder and hence, this Court should not interfere. He also relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1984 (1) Bom. C.R. 50 in the case of Pramod Rajaram Chavan & Ors. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Anr. to support his contention.2. Senior Advocate Shri. Dixit with Advocate Nagargoje has invited attention to impugned order passed by the Director of Marketing on 15.11.2010 to urge that the appeal preferred was not questioning any punishment under Rule 102 of 1967 Rules and hence, it was not an appeal under Rule 104 thereof. He invites attention to provision of 52B of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Mark...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›