Court : Mumbai
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 21.11.2009 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Additional Judge-2, Niphad, in Sessions Case No.42 of 2005, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to suffer further RI for 6 months, and under Section 379 of IPC sentenced him to suffer RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for 6 months. It has been ordered that both sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The facts in brief, as enumerated from the record, are as under: (i) PW-3 Khanderao Sayaji Pagar, is an agriculturist and resident of Khadak Ozar Taluka-Chandwad, District-Nashik and is also a trustee of the temple of Kedrayi Mandir. On 7.12.2004, the said PW-3 Khanderao went to the temple for darshan of the godde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. These petitions are fallout of a merger of Indian Airlines Limited and Air India Limited which was done to make the national carrier more competitive and profitable in the context of open sky policy of the Government of India. This amalgamation gave rise to various issues relating to compensation, harmonization and rationalization of the wages/salaries of the employees coming into amalgamated company from the amalgamating companies. To achieve the above object, an expert committee was appointed to decide and suggest the measures to integrate the employees of the two merged entities including bringing about pay parity between them. The report of the expert committee viz. Justice Dharmadhikari Committee report has been accepted and is being implemented by the merged entity namely Air India Limited. These petitions have been filed challenging the implementation of Justice Dharmadhikari Committee report on various grounds including non observance of the procedure pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment (Per P.V. Hardas, J.) 1 Appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which to undergo further RI for six months, by the III Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, by judgment dated 31 August 2005, in Sessions Case No.18 of 2005, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2 The facts in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW-3 Bhalchandra Patil who was police patil of the village learnt about the two dead bodies lying by the side of the road on 13.9.2004 at 8am. He had accordingly telephoned the Mohol Police station and informed them about the finding of the dead bodies. After arrival of the police personnel, PW-3 Bhalchandra accompanied the police to the house of deceased Subhadrabai. On going to the house of Subhadrabai, PW- 3 Bhalchandra pointed out th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 04/05/2013 passed by the District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2010, and the Judgment and Decree dated 10/11/2008, passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao (trial Court), in Special Civil Suit No.22/2002/A. 3. The appellants are the original plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the said suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said Special Civil Suit for declaration that the encroachment done by the defendants in the year 1996 and thereafter constitutes trespass in the property of the plaintiffs and for direction to the defendants to remove the suit encroachment and give vacant possession thereof to the plaintiffs. 5. Case of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 04/05/2013 passed by the District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2010, and the Judgment and Decree dated 10/11/2008, passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao (trial Court), in Special Civil Suit No.22/2002/A. 3. The appellants are the original plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the said suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said Special Civil Suit for declaration that the encroachment done by the defendants in the year 1996 and thereafter constitutes trespass in the property of the plaintiffs and for direction to the defendants to remove the suit encroachment and give vacant possession thereof to the plaintiffs. 5. Case of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhosale, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. P.P. More, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.1. Heard Mr. U.N. Shete, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. I-94/2011, registered with Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad. The said case relates to offences punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC, 468 of the IPC, 471 of the IPC, 120(B) of the IPC, 406 of the IPC, 323 of the IPC, 506 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC. In the course of investigation, in all, twelve vehicles belonging to the petitioner came to be seized. The petitioner made an application before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Aurangabad, praying for the return of the said vehicles to him. The application was made in view of the provisions of Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. This appeal arises out of judgment and award passed on 07/4/2003 in Claim Petition No.369 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. The appellant is insurer of the offending truck involved in the accident. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the parents of deceased Dilip, who died in the vehicular accident, and respondent No.3 is driver of the offending truck. 2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 lost their son, Dilip, in a road accident which occurred on 22/5/2002. On 22/5/2002 deceased Dilip was driving motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-31/AZ-649 and was proceeding towards his village Kothurna. When his motorcycle came near Khapa-Parshivani road, one truck bearing registration No. GJ-6/V-4681 being driven rashly and negligently, gave a violent dash to the motorcycle of deceased Dilip. Deceased Dilip sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. He was 27 years of age at that time and was earning about Rs. 7,000/- per month from milk business. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were depen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Smt. R.S. Dalvi, J. These writ petitions arise upon letters of three prisoners who have been convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and are serving their sentences. They challenge the deduction of 50% of the wages earned by them which have been appropriated to the Common Victims Compensation Fund, which has been created under Section 36-A of the Prisons Act, 1894, as amended by the Prisons (Goa Amendment) Act, 2005 and the Rules framed there-under being the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006. 2. One Tommy Thomas who was convicted under the NDPS Act was allowed the entire of the wages earned by him, without deducting any amount towards the Common Victims Compensation Fund. Thereafter, another prisoner also convicted under the NDPS Act, Basudev Joshi, was not allowed the entire wages. Fifty per cent of his wages came to be deducted under the aforesaid provision of the Act and the Rules. An order came to be passed by N.A. Britto, J., as he then was, on 24...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. This Second Appeal impugns Judgement and Order dated 10-07-2002 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.601 of 1997 decided by 2nd Additional District Judge, Nagpur. The Second Appeal was admitted on 29-09-2003 on the substantial questions of law stated as under- A) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in holding that: 1. The suit transaction is lease without any documentary evidence on record? 2. Appellant did not take serious action for two years and hence court came to conclusion that it is circumstance, to infer about lease created? 3. The respondent was paying the electric charges for two years and hence the respondent is not gratuitous licensor and hence lower appellate court comes to the conclusion that transaction between appellant and respondent is lease? 4. The transaction is between the appellant and respondent is lease and therefore the small causes court alone has jurisdiction to decide the matter? 2. The First Appeal arose from the decree of ejectment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S.V. Mundhe, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The respondent waives service of notice for final hearing. By consent, heard finally. 3. The petitioner is a SahakariPatsanstha [Cooperative Society] (For short, "Society"). It is the complainant in STC No. 531/2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ahmednagar. The respondent is the accused in the said case. After the evidence was adduced and the examination of the respondent under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code"] was done, the respondent submitted an application (Exhibit 60) dated 25-1-2012, praying that, witness summons be issued to the Chairman of the petitioner - Society - to appear before the court as a witness along with certain documents mentioned in the said application. On this, the learned Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!