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.
Raosaheb Narayan thengal and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant/Original Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9, and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant/Original Accused No. 8. The Appellants are challenging the judgment and order dated 20th August, 2005 passed by the Ist Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 143 read with S. 149, Section 144 read with S. 149, Section 147 read with S. 149, Section 148 read with S. 149, Section 302 read with S. 149, Section 506 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as under- It is case of the prosecution that on the date of incident i.e. 17-3-2004 there were altercations between two rival parties, on the ground of agriculture over a dispute of bund (i.e. the boundaries) of their respective agriculture lands, and the deceased Ankush was abused by the accused. The deceased Ankush told the accused that he would be coming...
King Edward Memorial Hospital Vs. Suresh D. Gaikwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Heard Mr. Cama, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent at length. Rule. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, hereinafter referred to as the employer have challenged the judgment and order dated 18.08.2012 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune (for short 'Tribunal') in Complaint (ULP) No.230 of 2008. By that order, the Tribunal allowed the complaint instituted by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the complainant and declared that the employer is engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 3, 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'Act') and directed them to desist from committing unfair labour practi...
Vinod S/O. Amrut Malkhede Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Oral Judgment: The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2012 viz. Vinod Malkhede has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 and also for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2012 viz. Santosh Vairagade has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) and 376 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the appellants were tried in Special Case No.15 of 2010 for the above stated offences and have been convicted as stated above. 2. The victim of the offence is a lady by name Sunanda Dashrath Zade who was aged about 40 years at the time of incident. The incident had occurred in the night intervening 10th and 11th of May, 2010. The complainant/ prosecutrix is resident of village Lakkadkot in Tahsil: Rajura. She had gone to Rajura for selling vegetables in the evening of 10th May, 2010. While returning to her native place at Lakkadkot she was waiting for a bus on...
Santosh @ Santu S/O. Jagasharan Pandey Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Appeal preferred by appellant/orig.accused No.2 challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 9th July, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.221 of 1999. In the said Sessions Case, initially two accused persons were tried including the present appellant. Both the accused were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/each, in default to undergo further sentence for one year each. Both the accused were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 and were sentenced to suffer RI for thre years each. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 and 34 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for seven years each. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mirabai and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Oral Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 02.02.2000, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.133/1992. 2. On 07.03.1992, the tractor trolley owned by original respondent no.2 (his LRs respondent no.(i) to (iv) herein) and driven by respondent no.1 met with an accident while transporting the stones. Parshuram, the deceased who was working as a labourer and traveling in the tractor trolley, sustained injuries and succumbed to them. The vehicle was insured with original respondent no.3 appellant herein. The deceased left behind him widow and the minor son. They are the original petitioners and respondent nos.1 and 2 herein. 3. Respondent no.3 claimed that he was not negligent or rash while driving the vehicle. Respondent No.4, stated that he had obtained the policy to cover the liability arising in respect of injury or death of the labourer. According to him, the deceased was travelling in t...
ZahiroddIn ShamsoddIn Bedade Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
NareshH. Patil, J. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 2. The petitioner challenges validity of the order passed on 9th October, 2012 by the In-charge Commandant, State Reserve Police Force, Group No.3, Jalna, cancelling permission for keeping beard. The petitioner submits that he is a Muslim and professes Islam religion. He was appointed as a Police Constable in the State Reserve Police Force on 16-1-2008. At present he is discharging his duties as Police Constable in the State Reserve Police Force Group No.3, Jalna. He had applied for keeping beard on 28th February, 2012. It is contended that initially respondent No.3 - Commandant, SRPF, Jalna granted permission to keep beard in view of letter dated 8-3-1989 of Government of India. By the impugned order dated 9th October, 2012 the respondent No.3 cancelled the Order dated 7-5-2012 under which the petitioner was permitted to keep beard. The petitioner was given opportunity to apply for keeping beard for a temporary pe...
Vijay and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
U.D. Salvi, J. Heard. Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by mutual consent of the parties. 2. Quashing of the land acquisition award bearing LAQ/SR/01/2001, dated 27.2.2012, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon - the respondent No.2 herein, under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of landed property - Gat No.19, situate at Kathora, Taluka and District Jalgaon, admeasuring 69 Ares is sought in the present petition. 3. The petitioners, who claim to be the farmers cultivating the said land, state that they had submitted objections to the acquisition of the said landed property before the respondent No.2 in response to the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 24.12.2009, by the respondent No.1/ State on 27/1/2010, and prayed for dropping of the acquisition vide objections dated 27.1.2010 (Exhibit B). The petitioners further state that a representation was made to the respondent No.2...
Pradeep Shivaji Shinare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
P.C. This is an application for bail by one Pradeep Shivaji Shinare who has been named in the FIR as one of the five persons who participated in the assault on victim Ravindra, who died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. The FIR by the victim's brother Arvind shows that he and some other family members were eye-witnesses in the incident. The dispute was initially with Bharat Shinare. On 11-5-2012, at about 6:00 p.m., the applicant and four others were hiding behind a bamboo bush. Bharat was armed with a sword. He hit Ravindra on the face with the sword. Ravindra fell down. Jaywant assaulted Ravindra on his right leg by a sickle. Tanaji and Santosh hit Ravindra by iron rods on chest and head. Bharat again gave a blow by the sword on the backside of Ravindra's head. The applicant hit the victim on the head, neck and chest with the wooden handle of a spade. The victim was pronounced dead on being taken to hospital. The notes of post-mortem examination show 16 injuries. Out of t...
M/S.Bayer Bio Science Private Limited Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
The petitioner, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 doing business in area of seed manufacturing and sale, has challenged the order dated 29th December 2011 passed by the appellate authority, the Commissioner for Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Pune in Appeal No.01/2011. The said authority is respondent No.2 before this court. The appellate authority has confirmed the order dated 13th April 2011 passed by the Controller and Director of Agriculture (Input and Quality). By that order, the said authority has found 164 farmers entitled to compensation and under rule 12(9) of Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of supply, distribution, sale and fixation of sale price) Rules, 2010 directed the petitioner to pay that amount within thirty days with statutory interest at 24%. 2. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that action against the petitioner is under the provisions of Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of supply, distribution, sale and fixat...
Smt. Jaya Rama Gauda and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
Oral Judgment: These are two appeals which question the conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Section 376 r/w Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, "PITA"). The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.596 of 2009 are original accused Nos.1 to 4 and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.704 of 2009 are original accused Nos.5 and 6. While accused Nos.4 to 6 have been acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of PITA, all the accused persons have been convicted for the other offences. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have also been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of PITA. They have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonments ranging from three months to seven years with fine on different counts. 2. Facts which are material for deciding these appeals are as under: On 26-3-2008 PSI Kishore Kharat was called by PI Anil Sardal and told about an i...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »