Mumbai Court February 2014 Judgments
Shaikh Khaled Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellant, who stands convicted for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, the I.P.Code) and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 4th August, 2011 in Sessions Case No.69 Of 2010, by this Criminal Appeal questioning the correctness of same conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case can conveniently be stated as under :- (i) The appellant is the husband of Rukhsana. Both use to reside in œPathanmohalla?, Pathari, Dist. Parbhani. In-laws of Rukhsana were also residing at Pathari and also her parents house is at Pathari. Even prior to the marriage, both were related to each other. (ii) The occurrence in question arose in between the night of 30th January, 2010 and 31st January, 2010. (iii) ShaikhYousuf Shaikh Kathu (P.W.No. 4) is the uncle of ...
Tag this Judgment!Swayam Realtors and Traders Llp Vs. the Appellate Authority Industrial ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. The Petitioner, by this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 1st July 2011 (majority opinion) passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) which, on an appeal by the State of Maharashtra, sets aside sub paras (i), (ii) of para 7.5 of the order dated 9.4.2010 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and remands the case to BIFR with a direction to initiate the process for modification of rehabilitation scheme concerning M/s. Khatau Makhanji Spinning and Weaving Co.Ltd. (KMSW) in terms of Section 18(5) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) for exclusion of the land affected by notices/ orders/ action under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (ULC) and its transfer to Swayam Realtors and Traders LLP (SRTL), the Petitioner herein, in pursuance of demerger and to provide for consequential changes. The order dated 01.07.2...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax (international Taxation) Vs. Income Tax Settlem ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
Per Court: 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), challenges the order dated 11 September 2007 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (the Commission) under Section 245-D(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The challenge is essentially on the ground that the impugned order dated 11 September 2007 of the Commission was passed ignoring the statutory requirement under the Act particularly the requirement of making full and true disclosure by respondent Nos.2 to 11 herein as applicants before the Commission. 3. Brief facts leading to this petition are:- (i) Respondent Nos.2 to 11 are part of Star Group of Companies which is owned by News Corporation of United States of America. The Respondent Nos.2 and 5 to 10 are incorporated in British Virgin Islands while respondent Nos.3 and 4 are incorporated in United Arab Emirates. All the respondents have their principal place of management at Hong K...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Khaled Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellant, who stands convicted for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, the I.P.Code) and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 4th August, 2011 in Sessions Case No.69 Of 2010, by this Criminal Appeal questioning the correctness of same conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case can conveniently be stated as under :- (i) The appellant is the husband of Rukhsana. Both use to reside in œPathanmohalla?, Pathari, Dist. Parbhani. In-laws of Rukhsana were also residing at Pathari and also her parents house is at Pathari. Even prior to the marriage, both were related to each other. (ii) The occurrence in question arose in between the night of 30th January, 2010 and 31st January, 2010. (iii) ShaikhYousuf Shaikh Kathu (P.W.No. 4) is the uncle of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bappasaheb and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.44 of 2010 on 04/07/2011. Originally there were five accused persons, who faced the trial. Out of them, original accused No.1 Bappasaheb Bhaskar Aware i.e. appellant No.1 herein and original accused No.3 Bhaskar Tukaram Aware i.e. appellant No.2 herein, (for the sake of brevity hereinafter they will be referred as 'the appellants') are convicted for the offence punishable under section-302 read with Section-34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the appellants are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section-34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer igorous Imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in de...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Keshaorao Meshram Vs. Presiding Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30.07.2003, passed by the School Tribunal, dismissing the Appeal STN No. 48/2002, filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act. 1977 (hereinafter referred to as œthe MEPS Act?), challenging his termination of service by an order dated 09.07.2000. 2. The School Tribunal has held that the appointment of the petitioner through out was temporary on year to year basis and it came to an end on 30.04.2002 and thereafter no order of appointment was issued to the petitioner. The School Tribunal has held that the petitioner cannot get the benefit of deemed confirmation in service by treating him to have been appointed on probation for a period of two years in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of MEPS Act. It has further been held that the petitioner was not qualified as he did not possess the qualification of B.Ed., at the time of his in...
Tag this Judgment!Nas Aviation Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kingfisher Airlines Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
1. Both the arbitration application and the arbitration petition have been filed by the same Petitioner and are taken up for final disposal together. 2. The Application is filed for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Petition is filed under Section 9 of the Act for interim reliefs pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings. 3. A contention has been raised by the Respondent that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. Since the relief prayed for in both, the application as well as the petition, will depend upon resolution of this question, it will have to be decided first. It is however necessary to give a brief background of the dispute to understand the context to which this question has arisen. 4. The Petitioner-NAS Aviation Services India Pvt. Ltd.(NAS) is a company which provides ground handling services to airline companies in India. The Respondent-Kingfisher Airlines Limited (Kingfisher) is a company w...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. The present appeal arises out the judgment and order of conviction recorded against the appellant (original accused no.1) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, on 23.11.2011, in Sessions Case No.80 of 2011, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The trial court, in the afore said Sessions Case, was pleased to acquit accused no.2-Leelabai, who is the mother of appellant, for the offences with which she was charged. 3. In nut shell, the facts giving rise to the prosecution case, can briefly be stated as follows :- The appellant/original accused no.1-Yogesh, along with his mother Leelabai (original accused no.2, who is acquitted by the trial court) was residing at village Chilgaon. The marriage between deceased Alka @ Sonali with the appellant Yogesh...
Tag this Judgment!Umakant Ganesh Sinai Talaulikar Vs. Dr. Umesh Fol Dessai
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
1. Heard Mr. Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 16/11/2010 passed by the learned District Judge-I, South Goa Margao (First Appellate Court), in Regular Civil Appeal no. 113 of 2009, by which the judgment and decree dated 31/08/2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao(Trial Court), in Regular Civil Suit No. 30/1999/D, came to be set aside. 3. The appellant is the original plaintiff and respondent is the original defendant in the said Regular Civil Suit No. 30/99/D. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Civil Suit. 4. The plaintiff filed the said suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove himself and all his belongings from the suit premises. The suit premises is a shop bearing no. 66-C(2). The plaintiff is the tenant of two shops premises b...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maroti and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred against the the judgment and Award passed on 19.9.2003 in Claim Petition No. 42 of 2001 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhandara. 2. Respondent no. 1 on 30.10.1998 boarded a vehicle “ Tempo Trax bearing registration No. MH-31/H-9518 (for short jeep) for going to Dongargarh from Nagalwadi. The jeep belonged to respondent no. 2 and was ensured with the appellant. It was being driven by one Ashok Giripunje. When the jeep reached a spot within the limits of village Shaheepur on National High Way No. 6, at about 4-00 a.m., it rammed into back side of a truck standing on the road in a stationary condition. As a result, respondent no. 1 suffered severe injuries and was treated for those injuries, first at Rural Hospital, Deori and subsequently at Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. The injuries led him to permanent disability. According to respondent no. 1, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »