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.
Bhavikkumar Shriramji Tandale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Oral Judgment: ( B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Petitioners challenge common judgment and order dated 24.2.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Original Applications No. 261 of 2009 to 288 of 2009 dismissing the said original applications. The petitioners had challenged order dated 24.4.2009 issued by respondent Dean and Chairman, Selection committee, Ayhurvedic College and Hospital, Nagpur, thereby terminating their services with effect from 24.4.2009. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of these petitions are as under : That, respondent no. 2, after approval of respondent no. 1, had advertised total 35 posts as under : Sr.No. Name of Post No. of Payscale PostsSr.No.Name of PostNo. of PostsPay-scale1.Peon42550-55-2600-60-32002.Ward Attendant252550-55-2600-60-32003.Asst. Cook22550-55-2600-60-32004.X-Ray Assistant12550-55-2600-60-32005.Rasshala Sevak12550-55-2600-60-32006.Washerman12610-60-2910-65-3300-70-40007.Barber12610-60-2910-65-3300-70-...
Manik Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
A.H. Joshi, J. 1. Appellant herein was charged in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2004 by 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, for pouring kerosene on his wife Sangita, setting her fire on 10.10.2003, at 4.15 p.m. and murdering her under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. CASE OF PROSECUTION : 2. The story as was put forward by prosecution :- On 10.10.2003 victim Sangita and accused Manik were present in their house. Accused had arrived at his house in a drunken state. Over some quarrel the accused got enraged due to the expression of the wife Sangita. He poured kerosene on her person and ignited her by a match stick. Sangita shouted. The accused poured water on her and extinguished the fire. Due to shouts of Sangita neighbours came up. One woman amongst the neighbours called Sangita's mother who arrived soon. One woman and Sangita's mother took Sangita to hospital. Sangita was admitted, examined and was treated by the Dr. Rahul Hatorkar the Medical Officer. Sangita gave oral dying d...
Ghanshyam Chatursing Rajpurohit Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
A.H. Joshi, J. The appellant herein was named as accused in crime No.I-67/2010 of Shirdi police station. After investigation charge sheet was filed and upon committal, charge for offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for murdering Shreya Ajit Mehta in a room in Hotel Guru Prasad, in front of S.T. Stand at Shirdi was framed in Sessions Case No.25/2010. 2. Prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. 3. The case is based on recovery of weapon at the behest of the accused u/s 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Prosecution had relied on PW-5 Tukaram Kadam, a waiter in the hotel Guru Prasad where the room was occupied by the accused and deceased Shreya. This witness has failed to identify the accused even before the Court. Any Test Identification parade was not conducted. 4. The prosecution has not proved the register maintained in the hotel meant for recording occupation and vacation of room by boarders. The signature of the accused, purportedly made in the said register...
M/S.Carissa Investment Pvt.Ltd. and Others Vs. M/S.Mahabal Realty Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
P.C. Heard finally. Criminal application no.1187 of 2011 is moved by the accused nos.1 and 4-applicants challenging order of process confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 5th October, 2011. Writ petition no.983 of 2012 is moved by the original complainant questioning quashing of process against respondent nos.2 and 3 (original accused nos.2 and 3). 2. The parties are referred as complainant and accused. On the complaint of Mahabal Realty Pvt.Ltd. under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned Judge issued process after recording verification on 17th December,2008. 3. The complaint proceeds on the accusation that in discharge of legally enforceable liability in respect of financial assistance rendered by the complainant to the accused no.1 from time to time, a cheque of Rs.10 crores was issued. An agreement was entered into between the parties. The complainant used to send statement of accounts in respect of loan transaction (financial ...
Snyman Lourens Abraham South African National Vs. Y.M. Patil and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 21(c) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS' Act), as also under Section 8(c) read with Sections 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- or in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for two years imposed upon the appellant by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the NDPS Act on conclusion of trial of Special Case No.13 of 2006 before him. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- The appellant, a South African National, had reported at International Airport at Mumbai at 2:00 a.m. on 16th July, 2005. PW-17 Kundansingh Mohansingh Bisht, an officer of CISF was frisking the appellant. He found that there was something suspicious and therefore, cal...
Buvaji Sahadeo Hajare Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
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 31.3.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2003. 2. By the said impugned judgment and order the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of both the victims, one Pandurang Vithoba Hirave and one Manubai Pandurang Hirave and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further RI for three years. It appears that the trial Court convicted the appellant-accused and awarded sentence of life imprisonment and fine for each offence of murder. However, the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is as under:- Deceased Pandurang and deceased Manubai were husband and wife and were residing at Limbachiwadi, taluka Kha...
Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck @ Jer Jawahar Thadani and Another Vs. Gharda Ch ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. By consent of the parties, the present appeal was heard finally at the admission stage and is disposed of by this Judgment. 2. The appellants have formulated following questions of law for determination of this Court : A. Whether the CLB does not have the power to review its earlier Order when the earlier order was not obtained on fraud or fabricated documents? B. Whether the CLB could not have entertained an application filed by the 1stRespondent, which was in effect and even stated to be for review of an earlier order passed by the CLB? C. Whether the CLB could not have vacated its Order dated May 21, 2012 on the same grounds on the basis of which the Order dated May 2012 was passed? D. Whether the CLB is required to pronounce its orders and whether an order merely posted by speed post without its being pronounced is not a judicial order in the eyes of law? E. Whether the CLB could not have permitted the 1st Respondent from implementing a resolution purported...
Sopan Bhausaheb Gunjal and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival arguments at length on earlier dates on the present Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellants/orig.accused Nos.1,3 and 4 challenging the judgment and order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nashik in Sessions Case No.156 of 2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer RI for two months each. For the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC, they were sentenced to suffer RI for seven years each. For the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, they were sentenced to suffer RI for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer RI for two months each. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. By the said ju...
Mulheim Pipecoatings Gmbh Vs. Welspun Fintrade Limited and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks direction to refer respondent no. 1 to arbitration under clause 11.13 of Share Purchase Agreement (for short SPA) and seeks dismissal of the suit (2287/11) filed by the first respondent in this court against the petitioner. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are summarized as under: (a) The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of Germany and is constituent of the Europipes Group carrying on business in the large diameter pipes Industries. The Petitioner is a substantial share holder of respondent no. 2 company. The respondent no. 1 is incorporated under the laws of India and is constituent of Welspun Trading Ltd. The first respondent is a promoter and share holder of second respondent. The shares in the capital of second respondent are listed on the National Stock Exchange and Stock Exchange, Mumbai. (b) On 10t...
Arjun Gopal Maharana Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Oral Judgment: [A.R. Joshi, J.] 1. Heard rival arguments on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant/orig.accused challenging the judgment and order dated 16th June, 2005 passed by the 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case no.24 of 2005. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, appellant/orig.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.1000/-, in default to undergo SI for three months. By the same judgment and order, appellant/orig.accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Admittedly, the State had not preferred appeal against the acquittal. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under: Complainant Ramcharan, deceased Shamim and present appellant/accused were in fact working together as building construction labours. They were working on the construction site belonging to PW2 Sunil. There was certain dispute betwee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »