Mumbai Court July 2014 Judgments
Popat and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
1. The Appeals arise out of Judgment of conviction passed against the Appellants-accused (hereafter referred as accused- with numbers as given to them in the trial Court and mentioned above in the cause title) by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No.76 of 1999, on 18th January 2000. The 13 accused were convicted for offence under Section 365 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.). Additionally accused No.13 was convicted for offence under Section 368 of I.P.C. However, trial Court passed order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 13 of offence punishable under Section 363, 364-A read with 34 of I.P.C. For offence under Section 365 of I.P.C. the sentence imposed was of simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. For offence under Section 368 of I.P.C., sentence imposed was simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Kisan Mahadeo Khupkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellant-State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against acquittal which is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.6.1993 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.196 of 1991. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-original accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offence under Sections 436 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: PW-2 Mukabai is the first informant in the present case. Mukabai along with her son Madhukar, her daughter in law Nanda and their children were residing in a shed near village Palasavade. The said house is constructed with stones and had thatched roof cover which was supported by wooden logs. The said shed was situated at some distance from the village and was not located in the village itself. The incident occurred on 28.9.1989 at about 8.00 p.m. PW-...
Tag this Judgment!Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
1. The applicant is accused no.1 in M.C.O.C. Special Case No.10 of 2012, pending before the Special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as M.C.O.C. Act), Thane. There are totally six accused including the applicant in the said case, which is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 153A, 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offences punishable under the Arms Act, apart from the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act. Additionally, the applicant and the other accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as amended till 2008 (hereinafter referred to as U.A.P. Act). By the present application, the applicant seeks bail. 2. I have heard Mr.Mubin Solkar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs.V.S.Mhaispurkar, learned APP for the State. I have also heard Mr.Subhash Jha, learned counsel who sought inte...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.72/1995 and the judgment was delivered on 27-1-1999. 2. Learned Counsel Shri A.D. Girdekar is heard on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.K. Bangadkar is heard on behalf of the respondent/State. The case of the respondent before the trial Court was that the complainant Ramnath Totla and the appellant were residents of one and the same village and their fields were adjacent to each other. The complainant on 27-11-1994 along with his labours Narendra, Sulochana and Kisan had gone to his field. At about 2-00 p.m. he heard noise by the side o...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra and Mahindra Limited and Another Vs. MNM Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
1. The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs, inter alia, complaining of acts of infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark M and M (hereinafter referred to as the said trademark) committed by the Defendants and for acts of passing off and for further and other reliefs as set out in the Plaint. The Plaintiffs have also sought interim reliefs in the Suit by filing the above Notice of Motion which is now taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. According to the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff No. 1 is a Company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Plaintiff No.1 and its group/subsidiary companies are together referred to as the Mahindra Group. Plaintiff No. 1 is the flagship company of the Mahindra Group of Companies and is a highly reputed, established and well-known business house having interest in a very wide range of businesses and activities. 3. Plaintiff No.2 is a Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiff No. 2 is ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the former offence and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the latter offence. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution before the trial Court was that the deceased Meena was married to the appellant about 6 to 7 years prior to the date of incident. For a few initial years the marriage was peaceful and later on the appellant allegedly started demanding money. It is alleged that the appellant was given Rs.18,000/- by mother of the deceased and one Mangalsutra was also given to the deceased by her mother. 3. The incident in question had occurred on 04-5-1996 at about 3-00 a.m. at the house of the deceased and the appellant. The d...
Tag this Judgment!Samar Vijaykumar Pupala and Another Vs. Shalini Pratap Hambir and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. With their consent, the Appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 17 April 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court revoking the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent and returning the plaint for presentation before the appropriate court. 3. The brief facts and circumstances in which the impugned order came to be passed are as follows: (A) By a Deed of Partnership dated 4 January 1971 the following persons constituted themselves into a partnership firm to function under the name and style of M/s. Hotel Anarkali (the said firm) (I) Vijaykumar Narsingrao Pupala (AppellantPlaintiff's father) (II) Surendra Narsingrao Pupala (AppellantPlaintiff's uncle) (III) Pratap Ramchandra Hambir (husband of Respondent/Defendant No.1) (B) By Registered Indenture dated 30 March 1971, the said firm purchased property at Mahableshwar, Satara and constructed thereon struc...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.72/1995 and the judgment was delivered on 27-1-1999. 2. Learned Counsel Shri A.D. Girdekar is heard on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.K. Bangadkar is heard on behalf of the respondent/State. The case of the respondent before the trial Court was that the complainant Ramnath Totla and the appellant were residents of one and the same village and their fields were adjacent to each other. The complainant on 27-11-1994 along with his labours Narendra, Sulochana and Kisan had gone to his field. At about 2-00 p.m. he heard noise by the side o...
Tag this Judgment!Dhananjay Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
Oral Order: 1. Heard both sides. 2. In both the present applications, the applicants, who were arrested in Crime No.9/2014, registered with Patoda Police Station, District Beed, for the offences punishable under section 302, 201 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code and under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, out of which now the Sessions Case No.71/2014 is pending on the file of Sessions Judge, Beed, are seeking their release on bail. 3. The submissions of both sides and the record would show that on 15th January, 2014, deceased Shrimant Subhash Pawar has died in the Primary Health Centre at Patoda. The statements of the Medical Officer as well as compounder would show that some unknown persons had brought him there with information that they themselves had beaten him as he had attempted to commit the theft in the Ginning and Pressing Mill of the father of the present applicant Vijaysing @ Bala Ramkrushna Bangar i.e. the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned trial Judge found them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil Mardikar has submitted that the appellants do not agitate all the points raised by them in appeal. It is submitted that since the description of the weapon, which caused fracture to P.W.1 and the fracture of skull bone of outer table of parietal temporal region of P.W.2 has not come on record, it was not correct on the part of the learned trial Judge to record conviction un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »