Mumbai Court July 2013 Judgments
Divyesh Val Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
P.C. Heard. 2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in C.R. No.168 of 2013 registered at Rafiq Kidwai Marg Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant is present in-person and she has been given audience by this Court. It is the case of the complainant that she is a divorcee and she was working with the organization of Art of Living. She was working as an instructor. The applicant was also working with the said organization. They came in contact with each other. The acquaintance had developed into love. The complainant has alleged that the applicant had promised to marry her. She had faith in the applicant. Hence, they had also developed sexual intimacy. It is the case of the complainant that they were having sexual relations from May 2012 to March 2013. The complainant had insisted to marry with him. He had only assured her that he will fulfill the promise but did not fulfill the same. Since 12th May 2013 he had start...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Shankar Jaigude and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra, (Throu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. The appellants who stand convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC') and in addition, the appellant No.2 Dinesh who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and each accused to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo SI for three months; RI for seven years and each accused to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo SI for one month; RI for two years; RI for seven years and each accused to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo SI for one month, respectively and appellant No.2 Dinesh being sentenced to RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo SI for one month for an ofence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, by the Ad-hoc District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by Judgment dated 6th April, 2013, in Sessions Case No.321/2012, challenged their convic...
Tag this Judgment!Damu Dagdu Patil and Others Vs. Dilipsingh Pratapsingh Patil and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Heard. Admit. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the counsel for rival parties. 2. These second appeals have been filed by most of the newly enrolled members of both the rival sides and one of them is old member out of 80. The following substantial question of law is framed. Substantial Question Whether the new or old members of the trust enrolled by both the group i. e. group led by Deelipsing Patil and group led by Shakil Musa Patel were necessary parties before the District Court in the proceedings U/Sec. 72(1) of the Trust Act and whether they are aggrieved persons? Answer No. 3. Mr. P. M. Shah, the learned senior advocate with Mr. S. P. Shah, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. R. R. Mantri, Mr. V. D. Salunke, Mr. Sidhartha Yawalkar, Mr. S. P. Brahme, the learned advocates appearing for appellants in these appeals made the following submissions. A. That, the appellants represented by them in these second appeals are amongst the newly enrolled members from the l...
Tag this Judgment!Babybai and Another Vs. Ganesh
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 19th April, 2012 below Exhibit-40 in Regular Civil Suit No.222 of 2010 passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed. The back ground facts as disclosed in the Civil Revision Application for filing the same are as under :- 3. The applicants are original plaintiffs. The applicants instituted suit praying therein for removal of encroachment by the respondent and for perpetual injunction. According to the applicants, the property over which the suit is filed is Grampanchayat Property No.320/City Survey No.735. The total measurement of CTS No.735 is 22 x 60 feet. It is the case of the applicants that, out of 22 x 60 feet, 5 x 60 feet is disputed. It is the contention of the applicants that, non-applicant in collusion with Gramsevak of village created false record; relying on the said record, the non-applicant is trying to en...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Baban Kudekar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai in Sessions Case No.47 of 2008. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default further imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under Section 342 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, further imprisonment for one month. The learned Sessions Judge directed that both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) Deceased Meena was initially married to one Balu Shende. Balu was addicted to liquor. After consuming liquor, he used to assault Meena, hence, ...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Chandiram Gyanchandani Vs. Jai Agencies Through Proprietor A ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this petition, the original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No.1100 of 2007 instituted upon the accusation of the respondent-accused having committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.9.2012 passed on Exh.113 by the trial Court. 3. The respondent-accused preferred said application inter alia praying for permitting him to lead his evidence in defence. By the order impugned, the said prayer was allowed with observation that the respondent-accused was permitted to examine himself in defence but he was not permitted to examine any other witness, except witnesses already examined by him earlier. Furthermore, the direction was given to respondent-accused to file his evidence on affidavit or oral evidence, as desired on next ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwambhar S/O Malharrao Kulkarni, (Niturkar), (Since Deceased, Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
1] This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the judgment and order, dated 30.6.2003, passed by the learned District Judge, Latur, in Rent Appeal No. 3 of 1998. 2] The facts for filing this Civil Revision Application, as stated in the Revision Application, are as under: It is the case of the revision applicants, who are the legal representatives of original petitioner/landlord Vishwambhar, that the suit premises consists of a shop admeasuring 15 x 20 ft. out of House No. 1270/6, situated at Gunj Golai area of Latur town. The original petitioner/landlord Vishwambhar was the owner of the suit premises and after his death, the present revision applicants/landlord (hereinafter referred to as the applicant/landlord) have inherited the suit premises. The suit premises was leased out to one Sadhuram, original respondent no.1, on monthly rent basis. Sadhuram used to run a fair price shop in the suit premises. However, subsequently respondent no.2 i.e. Radhesham started Ravi Bhandi Sto...
Tag this Judgment!Bandopant S/O Shankarrao Mallelwar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
1) The applicant has moved this Court after his anticipatory bail application dated 11-07-2013 was rejected by the Sessions Court, Gadchiroli on 19-07-2013. The applicant, by this application dated 22-07-2013 prays for anticipatory Bail, is facing serious accusations on the ground that he is part of criminal conspiracy to supply explosives and ammunition to the Naxalites groups engaged in violent and unlawful activities in the naxalite infested areas in the Districts of Gadchiroli. FIR No.3001 of 2013 was lodged under Sections 13, 18, 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 read with Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act and further read with Sections 395, 143, 147, 148,149 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2) It is case of the respondent State at this stage that preliminary investigations are in progress upon the report lodged that Medical Officer, one Dr.Karpe influenced by the present applicant-local Zillah Parishad Member had allowed the Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Sambhaji Khanduji Nagare, Died, Through L.Rs. and Others Vs. Taher Kha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, taken up final hearing. It is the case of the applicant that one deceased Sambhaji Khanduji Nagare and present revision applicant Nos.2 and 3 had filed R.C.S. No.346 of 1995 for recovery of possession in the Court of C.J.S.D., at Aurangabad against the present respondents No.1 and 2. It is the case of the applicants that in the said suit the present respondent No.1 was served with a summons and he reported appearance through his Advocate Kazi Ziauddin Khan and later on failed to file written statement and participate in the proceedings. The respondent No.2 reported appearance through his advocate and filed his written statement. However, thereafter remained absent. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2001. 2. The respondent No.1 filed appeal against the said judgment and decree before the lower appellate Court along with an application for condonation of delay...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Balan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
M.S. Sanklecha, J. Rule. By consent returnable forthwith. At the request of the Counsel for the parties matter taken up for final hearing. 2) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners take exception to the order dated 8 July 2011 passed by the Appropriate Authority constituted under Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By the impugned order dated 8 July 2011 a property admeasuring 555 sq. yards together with super structure standing thereon being property bearing Plot No.70/P, Suburban Scheme III, Chembur Garden, Chembur (said property) along with the encumbrance of a tenant thereon was acquired and now vests in Central Government under Chapter XXC of the Act. 3) On 18 February 1995, the petitioners entered into an agreement for purchase of the said property along with a monthly tenant thereon with the owners thereof namely one Waman Vishnu Ajrekar represented in the present petition by his legal heir Smt. Gouri Anand Gokhale as respo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »