Mumbai Court March 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.
Kirtansing Vs. Santoshi Mata Merchant Credit Society and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel, heard finally. 3. The revision applicant has questioned conviction recorded in terms of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusaval, dated 31.1.2007, directing the revision applicant accused to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.two lacs) to the complainant within one month from the date of the order under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., in default, further directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The matter was carried in appeal No.17/2007. Learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, confirmed the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.two lacs) payable to the complainant, however, directed the revision applicant to undergo sentence of one month simple imprisonment. Both the orders are questioned. 4. The revision applicant canvassed, there was failure of appreciation of the evidence by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. ...
M/S. Angel Capital and Debt Market Limited Vs. Mrs. Rajkumari Laddha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
Oral Judgment: None appeared for the Respondent inspite of repeated notices. The Petitioner has filed affidavit of service dated 2 August 2012 and lastly about the paper publication dated 12 November 2012. None appeared for the Respondent though served. The matter is pending since 2010. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks to proceed with the matter as there is no point to wait for the Respondent. Accordingly, the matter is heard finally. 2 The Petitioner, share broker, has challenged award dated 13 November 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the matter of Arbitration under Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, NSEIL) between the parties. 3 The learned Arbitrator has dismissed the claim of the Petitioner. The counter-claim of the Respondent was dismissed on the ground of limitation based upon then existing rules. The learned Arbitrator though recor...
Mangesh Rajaram Sawant Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
Oral Judgment: [P.D. Kode, J.] The appellant-original accused assails the judgment and order dated 15th September, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.354 of 2005, convicting him for committing the murder of his wife Noori @ Manisha Mangesh Sawant on 29th January, 2005 in between 1.30 a.m. and 5.00 a.m. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. According to prosecution, PW-1 Ankush Sitaram Bhosale, the resident of Jogeshwari, Mumbai was the maternal uncle of deceased Noori @ Manisha. The deceased Noori @ Manisha was born out of the wedlock of sister of PW-1, by name Kumud @ Fatima Hasan Shaikh, who had a love marriage with one Hassan Shaikh and she was residing at Prem Nagar, Jogeshwari. Kumud @ Fatima and Hassan had shifted to Nalasopara (E) about six months prior to the incident. 2.2 About two years prior to occurring of the inci...
Pradyuman Kumar Sharma and Another Vs. Jaysagar M. Sancheti and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
Common Judgment: By these petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (for short herein after 'the Act'), the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned awards all dated 30th March 2009 declared by the learned arbitrator. 2. By consent of parties, in view of the identical facts in all the four matters and common argument advanced by both the parties, all aforesaid petitions were clubbed and heard together finally at the stage of admission and are being disposed off by common order. I shall summarise the facts in arbitration petition No.300 of 2012 which were referred by both the parties. 3. The petitioner has advanced submissions only on three issues though various grounds are raised in the petitions and thus, facts and submissions relating to those three issues canvassed by the petitioner are set out hereinafter. 4. The petitioner was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Kuber Builders and also in the name and style including Kuber Plant...
Ravi Hanumant Thorat Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Heard submissions at the bar and perused affidavits filed on record. The Petitioner questions validity of detention of the detenu vide order bearing D.O. No. 5012/PCB/Detention/2012 dated 27-08-2012 issued by Commissioner of Police, Pune City, against Sahadeo@ Sada Laxman Dhavare. Detention was ordered on 27-08-2012 the ground that detenu Sahadeo is involved in illegal activities causing breach of public peace and was required to be detained under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, [Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates] Act, 1981 (Mah.Act No.LV of 1981, hereinafter referred as the Act). 2. At the outset, brief facts are required to be mentioned that on 17-07-2012, Senior Inspector of Police Khadak Police Station, Pune has submitted the proposal for the detention of Sahadeo@ Sada Laxman Dhavare under the Act. The proposal with in-camera statements of four witnesses was duly verified by the Ass...
Texel Industries Limited and Others Vs. Saraswat Co-operative Bank Lim ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
Oral Judgment: The Petitioners, original opponent Nos.1 to 3, have invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Arbitration Act") against an ex-parte order dated 18 July 2008 passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short, "MSCS Act"). 2. As recorded, the Petitioners though served, failed to appear before the Tribunal. Therefore, based upon the documents placed on record by the Respondent bank, the learned Arbitrator has passed the award of Rs.17,37,301/- with 15.75% p.a. interest with effect from 1 March 2008. 3. There is nothing on record to show that the parties have settled the matter. In the interest of justice, I am inclined to set aside this ex-parte award to give opportunity to the Petitioners. The admission of this matter itself means the award so passed, though exparte, just cannot be executed. Petitioner No.1, even if is a sick industry and still before the BIFR as r...
Mangala Bharat Thorat Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused No.1 against the judgment and order dated 5th June, 2008 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay at Sewree, in Sessions Case No.122 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under :- P.W. No.1 Sopan had three daughters. Neelam (deceased) was his second daughter. Her marriage was solemnized on 30th April, 2005 with original accused No.3 Sunil - son of the appellant. After the marriage, Neelam went to reside at the matrimonial house at Ghatkopar along with her husband and in-laws. The original accused No.1 that is the appellant, is the mother in law of Neelam and origin...
Ashpak Malik Nadaf Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case no.2 of 1996 before him, convicting the appellant, who was the sole accused in the said case, of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for One month. 2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, can be stated as under : One Janabai Susware was working as a nurse in the Rural hospital, Dattawad. She had taken one room on rent in the house of one Malik Nadaf - father of the appellant. This room was situated close to Rural hospital i.e. within the distance of about 500 feet. That, on 14.8.1995, Janabai had to go for duty at 2.00 p.m. A few minutes prior to 2.00 p.m., the appellant entered in her room and questioned her as to what she had told to his father. Janabai told him that she had n...
Baldevsingh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
The appellant impugns conviction recorded in Sessions Case No.87/2011 by learned Extra Joint Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, for offense under Section 307 of IPC, directing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months; for offense under Section 452 of IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-; in default, simple imprisonment for three months, for offense under Section 4 read with Section 25 of Arms Act, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. PW No.3 Smt. Anita wife of injured Nihalsingh lodged report to Police Station, Nanded, that the appellant knew her husband, being from same area of Punjab, and used to visit her house and consume liquor. He used to accompany her husband even at Toys Vending shop / cart. Since her husband had substantial earning in the week, appellant demanded money in ...
Dnyaneshwar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
1] Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant herein, by way of judgment and order, dated 29.12.2005, rendered by the learned 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2005. 2] It appears that the appellant herein was charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 independently and also r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with the co-accused and faced the trial in the afore said Sessions Case and the said co-accused came to be acquitted therefor, but the appellant herein was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to under R.I. for six months. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant (original accused no.1) has preferred the present appeal assailing the said conviction and sentence and prayed for quashment thereof. 3] The factual matrix of the present case is as follows:- ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »