Mumbai Court April 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.
Ashok Ganpati Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
Oral Judgment: (P.D. Kode, J.) The appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 24th August, 2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Islampur, convicting the appellant for committing the murder of his wife Sakhubai on 4th June, 2004 at about 9.00 a.m. in his house at Sujayanagar, Kapari, Tal.Shirala, Dist. Sangli by inflicting Axe blow on her head and on said count sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. According to prosecution, the appellant alongwith father Ganpati, mother Sonabai, wife Sakhubai and PW5 son Prasad of aged 8 years were residing at Sujayanagar, Kapari. The parents of the appellant were cultivating the lands of brother-in-law Jagannath while the appellant was doing centering work. The quarrels were ensuing in between the couple on the count of Shakubai oftenly returning and staying at the parental home at Bahirewadi without informing to the appellant. 2.1. After staying for 4-5 days at the house of the parents, Sakhubai had returned on t...
Ganpat Raju (Rajaram) Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 21.1.2008 passed by the learned 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case No.112 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: The complainant PW-3 Laxman alongwith his wife and father was residing at Pali Adivasiwadi, Taluka Karjat, District. Raigad. PW-3 Laxman was the brother of deceased Alka. Alka was the wife of the appellant. She was residing with her husband, i.e., the appellant and children at Excel Adivasiwadi, Taluka Karjat, District, Raigad. The appellant was addicted to liquor. When he was under influence...
Air India Aircraft Engineers' Association and Others Vs. Air India Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Counsel for the Respondents in the respective petitions waive notice. Taken up for final disposal, by consent. 2. As common questions are involved, these petitions are disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. All these petitions were proceeded together as common questions have been raised in these matters. 4. Writ Petition No.2457 of 2012 is filed by the Union representing Licensed / Approved Aircraft Maintenance Engineers employed by Respondent No.1 throughout India and abroad. 5. Writ Petition No.391 of 2013 is filed by the Union representing Licensed / Approved Aircraft Maintainance technical staff employed by Respondent No.1 throughout India and abroad. 6. Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2896 of 2012 is filed by the Union claiming to be the largest representative organisation of the Aircraft Engineers employed by Respondent No.1. 7. Lastly, Writ Petition (Lodging) No.585 of 2013 has been filed by the employees of Un...
Dilip Shankar Khujat and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
A.S. Oka, J. On 14th August 2012, a notice was issued by this Court. While adjourning the Petition on 15th March 2013, we had put the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the notice that the Petition will be taken up for final disposal. 2. The third Respondent is the Tasgaon Municipal Council which is the Planning Authority within the meaning of Sub-section (19) of Section 2 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Town Planning Act"). The third Respondent Tasgaon Municipal Council is the Planning Authority as it is a local authority within the meaning of Sub-section (15) of Section 2 of the Town Planning Act being a Municipal Council under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1965"). 3. The Petitioners are the owners of the land bearing Survey No.208-A/1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as "the said lands"), situated within the limits of t...
The State of Maharashtra, Ministry of P.W.D. of Govt of Maharashtra, ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the appellant seeks to challenge the order and judgment dated 5th July, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge-9, Pune rejecting the application filed by the appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by which the appellant has impugned the arbitral award dated 30th June, 2004 passed by the arbitral tribunal allowing some of the claims made by the respondent contractor. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under: The respondent was awarded contract for the work of construction of the building for the institute of Hotel Management and Catering Technology at Pune. The dispute arose between the parties and was referred to arbitral tribunal in accordance with clause 67 of the agreement entered into between the parties. By the impugned award dated 30th June, 2004 made by the arbitral tribunal, some of the claims made by the ...
Abbasali Khajbhai Sayyad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
Oral Judgment: (P.D. Kode, J.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the learned Vth Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur, convicting the appellant for committing the murder of his wife Najma Abbasali Sayyad and daughter Anjum Abbasali Sayyad on 29th September, 2005 at about 3.00 hours in the house of his brother-in-law PW9 Hassan Shaikh by inflicting blows of stone on their head and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. According to prosecution, the appellant after his marriage with Najma, daughter of PW2 Gulab Babu Gadiwan resident of Limbichincholi, Solapur, in the year 2001 was residing alongwith Najma and his parents at Swagat Nagar, Solapur. A daughter Anjum was born out of said wedlock. After happy married life for two years, the appellant started quarreling with Najma and beating her due to suspicion...
Barku @ Avinash Dnyaneshwar Zodage Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 25.1.2008 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.290 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(f), 377, 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.'). For the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months. For the offence under Section 377 of I.P.C., he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months. For the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonme...
Dnyandev Vs. Sunita
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
1. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 26th June, 2012 passed by the District Judge-5, Ahmednagar in Civil Misc. Application No.199 of 2009 thereby condoning delay of 1306 days caused in challenging the judgment and decree passed in HMP NO.56/2001. 2. The petitioner herein filed HMP No.56/2001 seeking divorce from respondent. The said petition was allowed. The said judgment and decree was challenge by the respondent before the District Court, Ahmednagar wherein there was delay of 1306 days. The said delay was condoned. Hence, this petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after decree of divorce came to be passed and after expiry of limitation period as prescribed under the relevant provisions, the petitioner has performed second marriage and from the said wedlock, they are blessed with children. It is submitted that there was inordinate, unexplained and huge delay, which has been condoned by the district Court without sufficient cause disclosed...
Shaikh Sheru S/O. Shaikh Turab Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
Appeal was admitted on 27th June, 2012. Appellant is in jail from 20th January, 2010, consequently, preference is given. FACTS: 2] The appellant has, allegedly, two months prior to the FIR dated 20th January, 2010 (Crime No.I27 of 2010), has committed rape on his 12 years' daughter (prosecutrix). He again desired such sex on 19th January, 2010, which was rebuked and disliked by the prosecutrix. She ran away and informed her mother, giving rise to FIR for offence under Sections 376, 506 and also 376 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. 3] After FIR, spot panchnama was drawn. The prosecutrix and the accused appellant were medically examined including radiology test to determine her age. The seized samples were forwarded to regional forensic lab and since it revealed that the accused has committed offence, he was charge sheeted before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad on 14th June, 2010 and it was committed to the Court of Sessions at Aurangabad for trial. Charge below Exhibit...
Sonali Pramod Dhawde Vs. Central Bank of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive notice through their respective Counsel. 2. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent. Heard Counsel appearing for the parties, including the interventionists in the companion petition, which has been disposed of today by a separate order. 3. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily, challenges the recruitment policy of the respondentBank dated 5.3.2009 of permitting filling of vacancies in Officers cadre earmarked for direct recruits through campus interview or campus recruitment process. The petitioners assert that they possess requisite qualifications and are eligible to be appointed against the vacant posts in the respondent Bank, as per its recruitment policy dated 5.3.2009. 4. The petitioners have filed this petition on 26.11.2012, after becoming aware about the pendency of other petitions in this Court challenging the selfsame recruitment policy that allows filling of vacancies earmarked for direct recr...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »