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.
Babasaheb Shankar and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1 The Appellant/original Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have directed this Appeal against Judgment and Order dated 13th September, 2007 passed by the learned I Adhoc Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2007. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. For the said offence each of the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/i.d. S.I. for 3 months. 2 The prosecution case briefly stated is as under : P.W. 2 Ashok Mane was the brother of Arvind Mane. Deceased Manisha was the daughter of Arvind Mane. P.W. 5 Shailaja is the wife of P.W. 2 Ashok Mane. Arvind was married to Geetabai. Geetabai expired 10 to 12 years before the incident. Thereafter, Ashok Mane and his wife used to look after Manisha and maintained her. Marriage of Manisha took place on 24122004 with the appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 2 is the mother of appellant no. 1. After the marriage...
Rajendrakumar Laxmichand Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
Oral Judgment: The appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for three months and R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which to undergo R.I. for three months, by the Special Judge, Jalgaon, by judgment dated 18.1.2001, in Special Case No.56 of 1996, 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 briefly be stated thus:- PW3 Kalidas Suryawanshi, who at the relevant time was attached to the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon as a Deputy Superintendent of police, was present in the office on 11.1.1996. PW1 Chudaman came and made an oral grievance against the appellant in respect of demand of bribe, and accordingly, he was asked to come on the next day and bring the amount de...
Vinayak Ukharda Javare Vs. Madhukar Tulshiram Patil
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
Oral Judgment: Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner prays to convert the Civil Revision Application into Writ Petition. Liberty granted as prayed for. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22nd February, 2011 passed on application below Exh.20 in RCS NO.20/2010. Further direction is sought to the respondent to pay court fee as per section 6(iv)(ha) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the prayers in the plaint and submitted that upon careful reading of prayers and in particular, prayer clause (C), it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff has prayed for declaration and cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner by the original defendant Nos.1 to 9. The learned Counsel for petitioner pressed into service judgments of this Court in case of Abdul Gaffar vs....
Magrab Shaikh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
Oral Judgment: Admitted. Heard finally by consent. Heard learned counsel Mr.R.J. Mirza, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.M. Bhagde, learned Addl. P.P. for non-applicant. 2. The applicants are accused in Crime No.09/2012 of Nandura Police Station. They are accused of the offences punishable under sections 489-A, 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. They are also accused of the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the I.P.C. The investigation has been completed. The charge-sheet has been filed which is pending in the Court vide Charge Sheet No.71/2012. The applicants feel aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2012. The applicants have been granted bail in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh each and have been directed to execute PR bond of Rs. 1 lakh and surety bond of Rs. 1 lakh each. In addition to this, the applicants are also directed to deposit cash security of Rs. 1 lakh each. It appears that the learned trial Court wanted solvent surety as well as cash security only because th...
Rajendra Laxman Sakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the Judgment and Order dated 26/8/2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Pune. The controversy in the proceedings is as regards the termination of the services of the Petitioner herein on 31/12/1996. 3 The factual matrix involved in the above Petition can be stated thus: The Petitioner herein applied for the post of clerk pursuant to the advertisement dated 23/5/1993 issued by the Respondent-Management for the various posts in the college run by it. Amongst the posts advertised was the post of clerk. A perusal of the said advertisement discloses that the same was in respect of posts in the junior college and for what is known as Minimum Competency Vocational Course (MCVC). The application filed by the Petitioner was considered and the Petitioner...
Jijabai Dinkar Jadhav Since Deceased, Through Her Legal Heirs and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Karandikar for the petitioner, Shri Palsuledesai for the respondent and Shri Rayrikar, learned A.G.P. for the State. 2. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order of learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (Tribunal for short) dated 13th January 1999 passed in review application being case No.MRT/NS-VIII-1-96 thereby allowing review application filed by respondent seeking review of order dated 12th February 1996 passed by the Tribunal in Revision Application No.MRT-NS-VIII-7-94. 3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: One Saraswatibai Kulkarni was the original landlady. She had leased out the suit land to respondent by a registered lease-deed dated 3rd March 1952. It is the case of the petitioner that land was further subleased by respondent and, on the tillers day i.e. 1st April 1957, the predecessor in title of the petitioner was in possession of the land as sub-tenants of the respondent. However, since on the tillers day Sar...
Shri Jagannath Vithu Jadhav Since Deceased Through Lrs. and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. The petition challenges the order passed by learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT for short) dated 10th October 2001 allowing revision application filed by respondent No.2 and thereby setting aside the concurrent orders i.e. order dated 31st March 1993 passed by learned SubDivisionsal Officer, Karad (SDO for short) confirming the order dated 12th August 1991 passed by Tenancy Awal Karkun thereby holding the the predecessor of the present petitioners to be a tenant of the suit land. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition are as under: That respondent No.2 filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad claiming therein that he was the owner of suit land. It was contended that the predecessor in title of the petitioners namely Vithu Sakharam Jadhav was an intelligent person and that in connivance with the revenue authorities he had made certain entries in the 7/12 extract and shown himself to be a tenant of the suit land. It ...
Sunita Vasudeo Warke Vs. Official Liquidator and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
PC : 1. The judgment of the learned Company Judge impugned in the appeal arose from a report of the Official Liquidator seeking: (i) A declaration that the sale of the immovable properties of the company in liquidation is null and void; (ii) A direction permitting the Liquidator to take possession of the property. While allowing the request of the Official Liquidator, the learned Company Judge has held that the Appellant had not made out a case under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 for validating the alleged transfer of property in question in favour of the Appellant by the company in liquidation. 2. Hindustan Transmission Products Limited, the company now in liquidation, obtained a lease on 7 September 1990 from Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (`MIDC') in respect of a plot of land bearing No.H-16, at Waluj Industrial Area, in the Taluka of Gangapur near Aurangabad. On 7 April 1997, a company petition for winding-up was presented before the Company Court (Compa...
Prakash and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. Rule returnable forthwith. The applicants are relatives of Safar Prakash Choudhari, who is facing proceedings initiated by his wife -Smt. Pushpa, the respondent No.2 2. The Executive Magistrate, Raver has initiated the proceedings for infraction of Section 107, 110(e),(g) of Cr.P.C. 3. I have asked Mr. Katneshwarkar, whether the applicants have any criminal antecedents, to which he informs, there is nothing, other than criminal prosecution, subject of present proceedings, and the one initiated by the wife of applicant no.2. 4. Applicant Nos.1, 3 to 10 are residents of distinct places, away from the abode of applicant No.2 - Safal, who resides at Nimandar, Tq. Khaknar, District Burhanpur (MP). The other applicants did not primarily exert any pressure on the wife of applicant no.2 or commit any ill-treatment, giving rise to the prosecution. However, keeping aside that aspect without just reasons in a private venture between the couple; jumping by the police officers...
Anil and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Oral Judgment: The applicants feel aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-10, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2012 dismissing the appeal filed by the applicants against the judgment and order passed by Assistant Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2012. The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of rupees one thousand each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of three months each. Applicant No.1 is son of applicant No.2. 2. It was the case of prosecution before the trial Court that complainant Roshan Damodhar Khobe was friend of applicant No.1 Anil as they were studying in one and the same school. The complainant had taken some money from applicant No.1 Anil by representing that applicant No.1 Anil would get diploma of computer course namely '...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »