Mumbai Court September 2012 Judgments
Jeevan Kashinath Patil and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Oral Judgment: [A.M. Khanwilkar, J.] 1. Both these petitions can be disposed of together as the issues raised therein are identical. 2. In Writ Petition No. 1541 of 2008 additional relief regarding pension claim is also prayed. However, during the arguments, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioner who is present in Court, stated that both these petitions will be pressed only in respect of claim of gratuity in respect of each of the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, it is not in dispute that the petitioners joined service as Judicial Officers in the State of Maharashtra as Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class. The petitioner in the first petition was in continuous service for more than 17 years. The petitioner in the second petition was in continuous service for around 12 years. Both the petitioners tendered resignations which were accepted by the High Court. Thus, they stood relieved from service thereafter. Each of the petitioner has been ...
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!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!State of Maharashtra Vs. Purushottam Dashrath Borate and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Confirmation Case No.1 of 2012 has been submitted to us by the Sessions Court in view of the provisions of section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The Sessions Court was pleased to convict the accused under section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and both the accused were sentenced to death and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each on both counts and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. A further direction was given that both be hanged by neck till they are dead. The Sessions Court was also pleased to convict accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under 376(2) read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and both were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were also further convicted for the offence punish...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevan Kashinath Patil and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Oral Judgment: [A.M. Khanwilkar, J.] 1. Both these petitions can be disposed of together as the issues raised therein are identical. 2. In Writ Petition No. 1541 of 2008 additional relief regarding pension claim is also prayed. However, during the arguments, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioner who is present in Court, stated that both these petitions will be pressed only in respect of claim of gratuity in respect of each of the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, it is not in dispute that the petitioners joined service as Judicial Officers in the State of Maharashtra as Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class. The petitioner in the first petition was in continuous service for more than 17 years. The petitioner in the second petition was in continuous service for around 12 years. Both the petitioners tendered resignations which were accepted by the High Court. Thus, they stood relieved from service thereafter. Each of the petitioner has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Sopan Onkar SaThe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
These criminal applications are challenging the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur, dated 08.06.2010 and 14.06.2010 and raising identical issues in challenge to the impugned orders. As such, both these criminal applications are heard together. These applications were admitted by order of this Court (Coram : R. M. Borde, J.), dated 21.07.2010, and interim relief was granted. 2. Heard Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, the learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. D.B. Yengal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1-State and Mr.K.H. Deshpande, the learned Senior Advocate with Mr. N.K. Choudhari and Mr. M.D. Lakhey, learned Advocates for respondent no.2. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present applications can be summarized as under : The applicant -Sopan Onkar Sathe was elected as a Chairman of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Malkapur. The elections of the said Committee were held on 11.03.2008 and in the first meeting of the Com...
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!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!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 opening of the Mod...
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!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »