Mumbai Court June 2011 Judgments
Vithal Mhasuji Gadhe Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and order dated 7-12-2000, rendered by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1998. 2. It appears that the accused nos.1 to 5 faced the trial under Sessions Case No. 16 of 1998 for the charges levelled against them under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and the appellant herein i.e. original accused no.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 30...
Tag this Judgment!Ek Lakh Khan and ors. Vs.District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societ ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 15/4/2011 passed by the District Deputy Registrar by which order the representation of the petitioners for appointment of the Administrator under Section 15A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for brevity referred to as 'said Act') came to be disposed of by holding that the implicit in the fact of postponement of the elections of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC), Ghatanji is the extension of tenure of the Managing Committee. 3. The facts, which are necessary to be stated for adjudication of the above petition can gainfully be stated thus - The petitioners are the Members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ghatanji. The elections to the said Market Committee had taken place some time in the year 2006 and the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Munni W/O Kita @ Kesu Dhanvat Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner questions the orders dated 26/11/2010 and 14/01/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Crime no.4280 of 2010, under Section 3, 4,5,and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ("PITA" in short ) and the order dated 14/02/2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2011 under section 17 (6) of PITA dismissing the Appeal. 3. The Lakadganj Police Station, Nagpur raided the infamous Red light area known as 'Ganga Jamuna' and rescued some girls from the alleged brothel on 25/11/2010. They were treated as victims and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no 3, Nagpur, who directed the Investigating Officer to produce rescued victims under PITA before Child Welfare Board and to conduct their medical examination through Medical Officer by 08/12/2010 for carrying out age determination, and to determine whether they were suffering from ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Top Notch Infotronix (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Infosoft Systems and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
This is an application under section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (24th Court), Nagpur in Summary Criminal Case No.13119/2008. Mr. Dawada, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal before this Court. According to him proviso to section 372, inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2008 (for short Act of 2008), which came into force with effect from 31st of December 2009, the forum for appeal would be the Sessions Court and not the High Court. Proviso to section 372 reads as under :- "Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of co...
Tag this Judgment!Ravan Balu Indalkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.26 of 2002 dated 17-02-2003. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of `500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months. The appellant/accused is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of `300/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one month. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was residing with his deceased wife Malan and children at Kubalwada, Vengurla. According to the case of the prosecution, accused was addicted to liquor and used to quarrel with his wife and used to abuse and assault her. On 18-03-2002, he quarrelled with his wife in the morning and in the evening, he poured kerosene on the p...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Pruthviraj S/O Parmeshwarlal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
1) Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2) The short question, which arises for consideration in the above writ petition is as to whether on remand the concerned Authority, i.e. Collector is entitled to consider the issue of suspension of licence or remand is restricted only to consideration of imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/- levied on the petitioner and also whether the Collector would be entitled to take into consideration the facts, which have transpired after the order was passed by the Hon'ble Minister. 3) The conspectus of the facts involved in the above writ petition can be stated thus : The petitioner is holding a CL-III licence, which has been issued to him for conducting the same at village Pinjar, Taluq Barshitakli, District Akola, on the allegation that he has sold country liquor bottle of 180 ml worth Rs.17.80 at Rs.18/-, thus selling at higher price of 0.20 paise, a show cause notice came to be issued to th...
Tag this Judgment!Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli and ors. Vs. Smt.Chandramala W/O Fattu Khob ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 28th August, 2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur in Complaint U.L.P No.26/2010, by which the interim application filed by the respondent herein under Section 30 (2) of The M.R.T.U. And P.U.L.P Act, 1971 came to be allowed and the order dated . 15/02/2010 came to be stayed till disposal of the Complaint U.L.P. No.26/2010 filed by the respondent. 3) The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petition are stated thus. The petitioner is the Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli and in so far as its Public Health Department is concerned, it is governed by the directions issued by the State Government, as regards the staffing pattern. The respondent herein was working as Health Worker at the Health Unit Deulgaon in Gadchiroli District. It appears that in view of the new staffing patte...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Pratibha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and anr. Vs. the Pres ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India takes exception to the common order dated 29/10/2010 passed by the College Tribunal, Nagpur, by which order the Appeals filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 59 of The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 came to be partly allowed and the petitioner-management, which was the respondent No.1 in the Appeals was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry against the appellant i.e. the respondent No.2 in each of the above petitions from the stage as was prevailing on 31/05/2006 i.e. after the application to allow cross-examination of the witnesses produced by the presenting officer. 3) The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petitions are stated thus. The respondent No.2 in each of the above petitions were the employees of the petitioner management, which is a public trust (The respondent No.2 in each of the petitions wou...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Renuka W/O Mohan Patel Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-15-2011
1) Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2) The order impugned in the present petition has been passed by the respondent no.2 Commissioner of Police without furnishing copies of documents on the basis of which show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. This has resulted in petitioner not being able to effectively deal with the show cause notice and ultimately the order being vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. 3) Smt. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, fairly states that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Commissioner of Police for a de novo consideration. She further submits that the documents in question, which according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner were directed to be furnished to the petitioner by order dated 6/12/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Police, would be supplied to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwar Majoor Kamgari Sahakari Vs. State Information Commissioner a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-15-2011
1) Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 23/6/2010 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Amravati in the Appeal filed by the respondent no.3 whereby the said appeal was disposed of by issuing a direction to the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Motala to procure the information from the petitioner, which is sought by the respondent no.3 herein and furnish the same to him. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 28/9/2010 passed in the Review Application filed by the petitioner. 3) The facts involved in the petition can be stated thus : The petitioner is a Cooperative Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and is classified as a Producers (Labours) Society under the provisions of Section 12(1) of the said Act and Rule 10(1) of the Maharashtra Coope...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »