Mumbai Court February 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.
Shivnarayan Shamlal Kahar @ Gauda Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. The appellant herein stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three years by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, in Sessions Case No.979 of 1999 by a Judgment and order dated 6.7.2002. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present Appeal. 2. Such of the facts, which are necessary for the decision of this Appeal, are as follows :- The accused-appellant was working in a firm, namely, "Chandrakant Marble Company", situated behind Kastur Park, Shivaji Nagar, Shimpoli Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai 400 092. The said company was run by one Ponnu Swami along with his brother Chelladurai. The said company deals in selling Marble, Kadappa and Kota stone. There were about 8 - 9 workers in the said company besides the accused. The appellant was working in the said company for about 8 years and was doing ...
Rajukumar Girdharilal Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 4. It is seen from the xerox true copy of Roznama produced before me that the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure for trial of sessions cases was not scrupulously followed by the learned Sessions Court. Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins upon the Sessions Court to ask the learned prosecutor to open case for the prosecution. Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as under : "226. Opening case for prosecution : When the accused appears or is brought before the Court in pursuance of a commitment of the case under Section 209, the prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused." 5. Stage to frame a charge comes after the Court comes to a conclusion that there was no case for discharge. The charge is to be framed if upon consideration of record and hearing, ...
Ramkisan Son of Goverdhan Dhurve Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Oral Judgment: [A.B. Chaudhari, J.]: 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 2nd May, 2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gondia, in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2010, convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the first offence, and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months, for the latter offence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. Facts 2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was residing at village Dhanegaon with his wife Pushpabai, step-daughter Jantribai and deceased Rajesh Markam, who was the husband of Jantribai, in a hut built on the plot allotted by the Government. The accused had married with Pushpabai,...
Abdul Subhan S/O Mohammad Umar and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
A.P. Lavande, J. 1] This appeal was originally filed by two appellants. However, during pendency of the appeal, appellant no.1 has expired and as such, his appeal stands abated. Appeal filed by appellant no. 1 is dismissed as abated. As such, we shall deal with the appeal in so far as appellant no.2 is concerned. 2] By this appeal, the appellant/original accused no.2 (hereinafter referred to as the accused) assails the judgment and order dated 30.5.2006 passed by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 115/03 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 364 read with Section 34, Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.7000/-, in default of which to suffer S.I. for 18 month for the offence punishable under Section 364 read with Section 34 and to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, i...
Sunil Vs. Raiskhan Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Urgunde. 2. Rule. With the consent of learned Counsel, Rule is made returnable and heard finally. 3. In STCC No.1069/2007, the revision applicant was convicted for offense under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur, on 2.5.2008, directing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The matter was carried in appeal No.33/2008, however, on 3.11.2009, the appeal was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, and hence revision. 4. The complainant Raiskhan came with a case that he was in acquaintance with the accused (revision applicant). On 7.7.2006, the accused approached him and made a demand of Rs.70,000/- being business requirement. It was complied with since the accused had assured to release the payment within 4/5 days. Accused issued cheque No.010868 for Rs.70,000/- dated 12.7.2006 filled in by the accused, signed by him, in presence of ...
Subhash Tryambak Kolte Vs. Vasant Laxman Patil and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Oral Order: B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. These three appeals are being decided by its common judgment and order as common question of law and facts is involved in all of them. These three appeals are filed by the same appellant Shri.Subhash Kolte, feeling dissatisfied by three separate orders passed by Dist. Forum Jalgaon in three separate complaints No.267/08, 268/08 and 269/08 which were filed by three different complainants who are joined as respondent No.1 in these three appeals. 2. The common case of complainants in these three complaints in brief is that original opponent No.1 (respondent No.2 in all these appeals) is registered Co-operative Society. It is engaged in accepting term deposits. It pays interest on the said term deposits and it also advances loan to its members. Original opponent No.2 (respondent No.3 in these appeals) is Chairman of that society and original opponent No.4 to 13 (respondent Nos.4 to 13) are its directors and original opponent No.14 to 1...
M/S.Ohm Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petitions are taken-up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel. 2. This judgment will govern four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution where the assessee has challenged notices for reopening of assessments for Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') in relation to A.Ys.2005-06 and 2006-07 have admittedly been issued beyond a period of four years of the end of the relevant assessment year. These notices would, therefore, be governed by the rigour of the requirement which has been spelt out in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Since the assessments for those years were completed under section 143(3), the reopening of the assessments could be valid only if there was a failure on the part of the assessee "to disclo...
Ramling B. Mali Vs. A.M. Atram, Deputy Secretary, Medical Education an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule. At the request of the parties, the Writ Petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash a Government Notification dated 20th September, 2012, issued in exercise of powers under section 40(2) of the Maharashtra Nurses Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The notification held that the petitioner is not entitled to continue as a Member and President of the Maharashtra Nursing Council and directed his powers, till further orders, to be exercised by the Director, Medical Education and Research. 3. Respondent No.1 is the Deputy Secretary of the Medical Education and Drugs Department, respondent No.2 is the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department and respondent No.3 is the Registrar of the Maharashtra Nursing Council. 4. The relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Nurses Act, 1966, are as under:- 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- .... (d) Council ...
M/S. Gurudev Developers Vs. Kurla Konkan Niwas Chs Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1. The Plaintiff has sued for specific performance of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the defendant society dated 18th January, 1985 and for declaration that the termination of the agreement dated 21st January, 1992 is illegal. The Plaintiff has also sued for damages of Rs.1,83,07,410/- in the alternative to the relief of specific performance. The Plaintiff was appointed the builder / contractor to construct the buildings of defendant society under the agreement dated 18th January, 1985. The Plaintiff put up certain plinth work. The Plaintiff has also put up certain pillars. Thereafter no construction has been put up by the Plaintiff. The defendant society terminated the contract. The defendant gave it to another contractor. That contractor has completed the buildings of the defendant society. 2. The agreement between the parties and the correspondence thatissued thereafter is admitted. The claim of the Plaintiff that he has put up construction other than the above is denied. C...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Nilesh Manohar Risodkar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.S. Doifode for the appellant and learned Counsel Ms. Trupti Udeshi for the respondent on the point of delay. After having heard both the sides, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor shall file application for condonation of delay. The Registrar is directed to mark the said application as disposed of. The application will be filed only for the purposes of record and statistic. 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.S. Doifode for the appellant and learned Counsel Ms. Trupti Udeshi for the respondent. 3. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The respondent is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, by the impugned judgment and order dated 10th July, 2012. The respondent was also tried for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »