Mumbai Court September 2012 Judgments
Uttamkumar S/O. Chandrakant Wagh and Another Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.D. Salunke with Adv. Mr. B.N. Patil for the applicants, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present application preferred by the applicant nos.1 and 2, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed that the judgment and order dated 4-8-2012, passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Latur, in Criminal Revision No. 58/2012, thereby dismissing the revision, and the order dated 25-7-2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.5, Latur, C.R. No. 3015/2012, registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur, in respect of cancellation of bail of the applicants, be quashed and set aside. 4. The factual matrix which gave rise to the present application is as follows : (a) An offence was registered bearing No. 3015/2012 under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Bombay Prevention ...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Yogiraj Paul Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Special [Atrocity Case] No.10/11 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, who was also working as Special Judge in respect of the case filed under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989. The appellant is convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for offences u/s 376, 363 and 506 of I.P.C. and he is also convicted and sentenced for offence u/ 3(i) (xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989. The maximum substantive sentence of 10 years R.I. is given to the appellant. Both sides are heard. Perused the record. In short, the facts leading to institution of this proceeding can be stated as follows: 2] The prosecutrix is a resident of Beed. At the relevant time, she was aged about 14 years and she was studying in 9th standard. She was living with her parents and a brother. The accused is a married man and he was living in the...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar S/O. Bhaurao Lande and Others Vs. the District Collector and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1] Considering the nature of controversy, we have taken up the petitions for final hearing by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Accordingly, we have heard the respective Counsel. The arguments advanced are in the backdrop of judgments/orders passed by three different Division Benches here and as such, our attention has not been drawn to any individual or specific challenge. Thus, we are considering the challenge as presented. 2] The petitioners claiming to be a freedom fighters, who allegedly participated in the freedom struggle against the regime of the erstwhile Nizam, assail the orders by which their pension has been discontinued. The State Government accepted the report submitted by Hon. J. Palkar (Retd.) Committee and has passed the impugned orders. The petitioners had applied for Freedom Fighter's pension in accordance with the Government Resolutions dated 5th September, 1992 and 4th July, 1995. 3] All the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpana Munish Bumb Vs. M/S. Joindre Capital Services Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Oral Judgment: 1.These three petitions are filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (For short Arbitration Act). Since the facts and submissions in all three petitions are identical, were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. FACTS IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 313 OF 2012 : 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent is a trading member of the Stock Exchange. The Petitioner was a constituent of the respondent. A member client agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and respondent. It is not in dispute that the last transaction between the parties had taken place in the month of March, 2008. The dispute arose between the parties. The first respondent invoked arbitration clause as per Regulations framed by the Exchange. Statement of case was filed on 20th December, 2010. Prior to the issuance of circular dated 11.10.2010, the bye-laws governing the period of limitation i.e. Regulation 252(2) of the Bombay Stock Exchange prov...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Ganpat Gaikwad and Others Vs. Sunita Devi Singhaniya Hospit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Oral Order: (Chief Justice): This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 9 November 2011 of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellants' Writ Petition challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Thane rejecting the Reference (IT) No.37 of 2003 made at the instance of the Shramik Sena Workers Union of which the appellants claim to be the members. 2. The Shramik Sena Workers Union had contended that the appellants were workmen employed by the respondent employer and that the appellants were engaged in the activities of laundry, canteen and other departments of the hospital which were being run by the aid of the power, where more than 10 workmen were employed in each Department. The Industrial Tribunal by the impugned judgment held that the workmen were already paid closure compensation in accordance with law. As regards the alleged liability of the respondent to obtain prior approval of the Government for cl...
Tag this Judgment!State of Goa, (Through Public Prosecutor, Margao Goa) Vs. Constancio P ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 20.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-2, South Goa Margao, in Criminal Appeal No. 75/2009 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Canacona in Criminal Case No. 39/S/2007 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of I.P.C. 2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:- The accused was the driver of the bus belonging to Kadamba Transport Corporation. On 9.3.2007 he was proceeding towards Karwar with the vehicle bearing no. GA-01-X-0268. At Karmal Ghat in Canacona, one maruti van bearing no. GA-01-E-1331 was coming in opposite direction. The bus dashed against the said maruti van resulting in death of one person and grievous injuries and simple injuries to two persons. It is the case of th...
Tag this Judgment!Hemraj S/O Sampatrao Bhoyar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard rival submissions at length. This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed on 03.09.1998. 2. The appellant/accused was tried in Sessions Trial No. 163/1997 by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 365, 366A and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. He was tried along with two other co-accused. Said two co-accused are acquitted of all the charges and present appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for two months. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The case of prosecution is that prosecutrix victim girl aged about 17 years was studying in college and present appellant/accused was staying in neighbourhood of said girl. Apparently, they had developed some love affair, however, t...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Mohammad Dost Mohammad Khan and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Twenty-one persons, claiming to be occupants, have instituted these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under DCR 33(10) in respect of a property described as Meer Hussain Tangewala Chawl situated on C.T.S. No. 65 (Part), 66, 66/1 to 51 at Andheri (West), Mumbai. The land belongs to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and there is admittedly a reservation for the purposes of a fish market. The scheme which has been sanctioned by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority ( 'the SRA' ) envisages inter alia the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers, the construction of a municipal market and other amenities including a Madrassa, balwadi, welfare center and the construction of tenements for project affected persons. The implementation of the scheme has substantially progressed and at this stage, the structure in which the rehabilitation component of the scheme is to be housed has been constructe...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash S/O. Jagdeo Gade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 16/01/2009 passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Sessions Trial No.25 of 2007 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and imposing fine in the sum of Rs 2000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the records. 3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under: It is case of the prosecution that the accused was a member of an unlawful assembly which was formed at the time of commission of offence and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, caused death of Subhash Gade. The First Information Report was lodged by Sunita Subhash Gade (wife of the deceased) at Police Station, Jalamb about t...
Tag this Judgment!Swami Ramanand Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. the State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is to decision of the Government and / or of Respondent 5 - Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, to establish the Model College at Ghansavangi in Jalna District at “Exhibit-F” with the petition. Said document is dated 16.3.2011 and a proposal to that effect appears to have been placed before the Management Council of Respondent 5 University through it. Resolution of the Management Council also of same date, forms part of this exhibit. State of Maharashtra is respondent 1 while the Union of India is respondent 2 in petition. University Grants Commission (UGC) is respondent 3 while the Hon. Minister for Higher and Technical Education is joined in his personal capacity as respondent 4. 2. On 21.11.2011, this Court did not grant any interim relief to the Petitioner educational institute as admissions in the subject college were already over in July,2011 and open...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »