Mumbai Court January 2013 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.
Bhausing Gulab Pawar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2013
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against conviction of the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, District - Nashik for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.2,500/- or in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months imposed upon the appellants on conclusion of trial of Sessions Case No.108 of 2003 before him. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- The appellants are related to the first informant and his family. The first informant, Santosh is a real brother of appellant, Gulab Onkar Pawar. Their fields are adjacent to each other. The fields are separated by bandh. On 11th September, 2003, the victim's family had brought a tractor for leveling their fields. In the process of leveling, the appellants felt that the first informant's family also damaged bandh se...
Hanuman Rajaram Mhatre Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing by consent and Heard. 2. The petitioner has sought to invoke writ jurisdiction of this court praying for quashing and to set aside the show cause notice dated 04012012, the order of externment dated 10042012 and the order externing the Petitioner issued on behalf of the Respondent state to the petitioner whereby the Petitioner was directed to be externed from the Mumbai Suburbs, New Mumbai and Thane, Raigarh Districts for the period of two years. The Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the order of externment on the ground that due to the illegal acts of the petitioner, alarm or danger has been created in the mind of the people in respect of safety of person or property in view of the offences committed by him under the provisions of Chapters 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 04-01-2012 under section 59 of the Bombay police Act, ca...
Dattu Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-15-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.9.2008 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Chandrapur, in Sessions Case No.7 of 2008, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 2. FACTS : Briefly stated, prosecution case is that the complainant Sau. Sangita Namdeo Naitam resided at village Ambezari along with her husband and 1-1/2 year old daughter Samiksha. On the date of incident, namely on 24.2.2008, the complainant and her small daughter were at home. Since her husband had gone to Patan bazar, the child victim was playing in front of the house near tap and the complainant and one Indubai were sitting in the courtyard. At about 2 p.m. the appellant/accused, who is the neighbour of th...
Jacky @ Jaikishan Madhusudan Nakwal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-15-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent of both the parties. 4. Perused the impugned order. The proposal for externment was submitted on 29th August, 2009 and show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 7th September, 2012 i.e. after about three years of receipt of the proposal. Last offence allegedly committed by the applicant is under the Bombay Police Act registered as Case No.15 of 2008 under Section 117 of the Act. Prior to that also there was one offence against the applicant i.e. of the year 2007. The said offence is also punishable under Section 117 of the Bombay Police Act for alleged contravention of Section 110 of the said Act i.e. behaving indecently in a public place. 5. As such, there is no serious charge against the applicant since last more than five years. The proposal was pending before the competent authority for more than three years. That by itself is a good ground for quashing the impugned order. The order obviously is arbitrary, capriciou...
Baliram S/O Tolaram Rathod and Another Vs. Shaikh Anwar Shaikh Rashid ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-15-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners extensively. Counsel for Respondent No.1 repeatedly called, absent. Learned APP has urged for time to ascertain as to whether powers of appointing and/or removing the petitioners, vest with Director General of Police. Rule made returnable forthwith 2. Respondent No.1 - Shaikh Anwar Shaikh Rashid filed a complaint, for offence under Sections 504, 506 rw. 341 of Indian Penal Code, against the police officers, the petitioners. 3. The gravamen of complaint is on 25.06.2008, feeling enraged by a complaint presented to the National Human Rights Commission, the petitioners herein came to village Bharadi. The petitioner No.1 started abusing in filthy language and respondent No.1 was carried to Sillod Rural Police Station, where the petitioner No.2 was present. Petitioner No.2 also allegedly abused the respondent No.1 and also threatened to involve the respondent in a false case. Thus, the grievance of the respondent No.1 was, he was ille...
Ramjan Mohamad Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-15-2013
Oral Judgment: The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for three months by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, by judgment dated 30.12.2000, in Sessions Case No.24 of 1997, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may be stated thus :- P.W.4 Head Constable Sukhdev Wandhekar, who was attached to Shrirampur city police station on 6.12.1996, recorded the report of P.W.3 Kamalbai at Exh.13. On the basis of the said report he registered an offence vide Crime No.388 of 1996 under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Further investigation was entrusted to P.W.5 A.P.I. Shaikh Daud. 3. P.W.5 A.P.I. Shaikh Daud, who was also attached to the Shrirampur city police station, was entrusted with the investigation of the...
Khr Hospitality India Ltd. Vs. State of Goa, Through Secretary, Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-15-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. De Souza, learned Counsel for respondent No.3. We have also heard the intervenor in person. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner which is a company running a Five Star Resort is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30th November, 2012 issued by respondent No.3- Village Panchayat of Majorda-Utorda-Calata. In this petition, an intervention application is filed by one Aleixo Arnolfo Pereira for permitting him to intervene in the petition and seeking a direction for dismissing the writ petition. 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: The petitioner is owner of a property bearing Survey Nos. 45/1, 43, 44, 45, and 46 of Village Utorda, where it is runnin...
Pandurang Devidasrao Joshi Since Deceased, Per L.Rs. Vs. State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-15-2013
Oral Judgment: The appellant/original accused no.1, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for three months and R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for three months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, by judgment dated 26.12.2000 in Special Case No.69 of 1991, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. During the pendency of this appeal the original appellant expired and his legal heirs were permitted to prosecute this appeal. Reference in this judgment to "appellant" means the original appellant/accused. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may be stated thus :- P.W.7 Police Inspector Vikas Kohok, who at the relevant time was working as the Police Inspector in the ...
Pranjay Purushotambhai Goradia Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
Naresh H. Patil, J. 1] Heard. 2] The appellant was charged for assaulting Kalpana Mahimkar with intention to cause death with deadly weapon i.e. knife. The charge was framed against him for offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code on 30.8.2000. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. 3] The prosecution case in brief is that the present accused was in love with the victim Kalpana. Both were originally belonged to State of Gujarat and they were knowing each other since the year 1988. The family members of Kalpana were against the relationship between the two. In search of job, Kalpana shifted to Mumbai. She was doing a part time job in Chartered Accountant's Firm at A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai owned by P.W. 1 Ganesh Mehta. It is the prosecution case that the appellant was on visiting terms with victim Kalpana. Though the appellant was residing at Ahmedabad, he used to frequently visit Kalpana. 4] On 26.10.1990 on the day of incident Kalpana was working in...
Sherali Khan Mohd. Manekia and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
1 The Court Receiver's report and additional report are both placed before me in the following facts and circumstances. 2 The Appellants, in this Appeal from Order, had challenged the judgment and order dated 03.05.1980 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane in Special Civil Suit No.37/1980 rejecting an application for appointment of the Court Receiver. 3 By an interim order dated 22.07.1980 passed by this Court, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay was appointed as a Receiver on the suit properties consisting of land survey No.34/1 admeasuring 36 Gunthas and Survey No.35/3 admeasuring 1 Acre and 8 Gunthas situate at Panchpakhadi District Thane and this Court further directed the Court Receiver to immediately take possession of the suit property. It was provided in the said order that all the persons who were present at that time in actual possession of any part of the suit property either land or structure should continue to remain in possession of the same and fu...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »