Mumbai Court December 2012 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.
Rameshchandra Dwarkaprasad Gupta Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant/orig.accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 11th January, 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.122 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/, in default to suffer imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under:- Appellant/ accused along with his wife Usha (since deceased) and his three children was residing together at Jogeshwari. PW1 Mrs. Urmila Sharma was his neighbour. PW2 Vishnu Tak was also a neighbour of appellant/accused. PW4 Bhjarat Jaiswal was his earlier neighbour when appellant/accused along with his family was staying at other place. PW3 is Chandan Gupta, a young son of appellant/accused. Said PW3 Chandan G...
istique Ahemed M. Yusuf Shaikh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Oral Judgment: These two appeals are directed against the conviction of the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- on the first three counts, and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the last count imposed by the learned Judge on conclusion of trial of Sessions Case No.308 of 2011 before him. 2. Facts which are material for deciding these appeals are as under: The first informant Bilal is a scrap merchant. On 14-2-2011 there was some quarrel between appellant-Istique on account of assault on Bilal's brother. Though the parties were pacified, it appears that Istique had gone to the police. On 15-2-2011, at about 11:30 a.m., when Bilal was in his scrap shop assisted by his servant Baba Shaikh (PW-7) and was in the process of purchasing scrap fro...
Anantha Punaji Padval Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) The appellant-original accused has directed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2004 passed by learned III Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.66 of 2003. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default RI for six months. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, as under :- PW-2 Ganpat was residing in Gosavi-Jambhuldara, taluka Khed, district Pune. He was cousin of the appellant. The appellant and his wife deceased Krishnabai and two children were residing in the house adjoining that of PW-2 Ganpat. The appellant was addicted to liquor and there used to be frequent quarrels between the appellant and his wife. The incident occurred in the night of 30.8.2002. At about 11:00 pm PW-2 Ganpat was sleeping in his house. He heard shouts. He asked his wife wh...
Sanjay Khemraj Rathod Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 This writ petition challenges part of order dated 19th September, 2011 passed by the Appellate Authority appointed under the provisions of Ashram School Code. The facts leading to this litigation, in short, can be stated as under: 2 The Petitioner Sanjay was appointed as an assistant teacher in 1998 in a school by name Kai. Sau. Vatsalabai Pote Ashram Shala, Bardari, Taluka and District Ahmednagar, which is run by a public trust. This is a Government aided school. On 30th May, 2003, the Petitioner was appointed on probation on the post of Headmaster for a period of one year. Respondent No.2, who is competent Authority for granting of approval for such appointment, granted approval vide order dated 30th April, 2004. The Petitioner even after April 2004, continued on the said post though no specific order appointing him as Headmaster for period subsequent to April 2004 was passed. The Management of the school, however, by resolution dated 1st April, 2007 decided to appo...
ishwarbhai Narayan Makwana Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
A.R. Joshi, J. 1) Heard rival submissions on this criminal appeal preferred by the appellant/accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 21st September, 2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 439 of 2003. 2) By the impugned judgment and order, the present appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer RI for three months. 3) At present, the appellant is in custody. 4) The case of the prosecution, in nut-shell, is as under:- The victim Raji was initially married to one Soma and they were staying at Mumbai at Babrekar road. Due to tuberculoses said Soma died at his native place in Gujarat. Thereafter, victim his wife, came back to Mumbai. When earlier she was staying with her husband Soma, they had secured rental accommodation at the instance of the appellant-accused. During the life time, Soma...
Dattatraya Channappa Shete Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Leave to amend to add a ground. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant by the learned Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act at Sangli for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, "the EC Act") and sentence of simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon him by the learned Judge on the conclusion of Special Case No.3 of 1991 before him. 3. Facts, which are material for deciding this appeal, are as under: On 15-4-1991 one Jaywant Mule made a complaint to the Police in respect of activities of the appellant. The Police went to the house of the appellant, searched it and found eleven cylinders filled with gas, four regulators and twelve empty cylinders. The appellant did not have any licence to possess the cylinders. An offence was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was sent to the Court of Special Ju...
Sadhana Janardhan Jadhav Vs. Pratibha Patil Mahila Mahamandal and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1) Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2) This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.8531 of 2009, refusing relief of reinstatement to the appellant. FACTS 3) The appellant, who belongs to scheduled caste, was appointed on 1st August, 2000 to teach 5th to 7th Std. Students in the school run by Respondent No.2-management. She continued to work till 31st January, 2003, but by order dated 31st January, 2003, her services were terminated retrospectively w.e.f. 8th April, 2002 by Head Master of Respondent No.2-school. 4) The appellant is M.A.B.Ed. According to her, the termination was effected under the signature of the Headmaster without decision of the management to do so. In this appeal, she prayed for reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages. 5) The management filed its reply to the appeal b...
Pappu @ Ravi S/O Nankuram Yadao Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.B. chaudhari, J.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2.2.2008, passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge 9, Nagpur in Session Trial No.227/2007 by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days and was further convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant. 2. In support of the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions. (A) There is no direct evidence in the form of eye witness to the incident in question. (B) The prosecution has placed reliance only on the evidence in the ...
Ashok Gulabrao Gondekar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Leave to correct prayer clause (i) is granted. The correction be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard. 3. ADMIT. 4. Heard finally by consent. 5. The applicant was accused in Regular Criminal Case No.173 of 2001 decided by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati by his judgment and order dated 28th September, 2010. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.One Thousand, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three moths. 6. The applicant had filed appeal before the Sessions Court against the judgment and order of the trial Court. The appeal has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 5th November, 2012 in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2010. 7. The applicant was admittedly working as Gram Sevak in Gram Panchayat of Fattepur and Jawara. As a part of his duty he was incharge of cash transactions and was mainta...
Dipak Brijmohan Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra Through, Its Inspector, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sunil Manohar for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.B. Jaiswal for the respondent/State. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 52(a) and 52(e) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (in short "the Act, 1948") for having contravened the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, 1948 and Rule 20(7) of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Rules, 1961 (in short "the Rules, 1961"). Section 8 of the Act, 1948 runs as under : "8. Change to be communicated to Inspector - It shall be the duty of an employer to notify to the Inspector, in a prescribed form, (any change in any of the particulars contained in the statement submitted under section 7 within such period, after the change has taken place, as the State Government may prescribe in respect of any establishment or class of establishment). The Inspe...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »