Mumbai Court July 2014 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.
Dhanraj and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
1. The appellants (son and mother) are original accused Nos.2 and 3. They were tried along with original accused No.1 Raosaheb Ghadge, (the father of accused No.2 and husband of accused No.3), and accused No.4 Anita and accused No.5 Baban @ Saprasen, (the daughter and other son of original accused No.1 Raosaheb respectively). The victim of the incident was Mangal (hereinafter referred as victim), the wife of accused Dhanraj. 2. The five accused were tried in Sessions Case No.30/1993 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). The other accused got acquitted of the offence while present appellants- the accused No.2 and accused No.3 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. They were convicted also for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, but no separate sentence was imposed. Thus, the present appeal. 3. T...
Chidi Anthony Uzoukwu Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Special judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No.48 of 2006, thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under section 21(C) r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, thereby sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and payment of fine of Rs.1 lakh, i/d, to undergo R.I. for six months. On 24.10.2005, the appellant was apprehended when he was carrying 13.800 kg of heroin in 46 pieces of shock absorbers at Bombay Central railway station, pursuant to an information received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The appellant on that day, travelled by Rajdhani express from Delhi to Mumbai Central. He collected the baggage from brake van. He collected his luggage of 4 black colour heavy bags from the break van and the officers of the DRI who were present, questioned him about the said baggage and in the presence of panchas, he was taken to DRI ...
Mahendra Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and the victim were found at the house of the victim (P.W.2) by father of P.W.2. The appellant escaped by removing tin sheet of roof. Father of P.W.2 reported the matter to police stating inter alia that he had seen a thief coming out of roof of his house. The incident had occurred at village Satefal. The father of victim had gone to Hinganghat and he returned at about 12-00. On his return, as stated, he had seen the appellant running away from the roof of his house. On arrival of police, the victim was found unconscious. She was taken to police station and her statement was recorded. Her statement revealed that the appellant had committed rape on her. She was sent for medical examination. The appellant was arrested and he was also sent for medical examination. Clothes of the victim and the appellant were seized by the p...
Rekha Sitaram Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant, original accused, has preferred the present appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 11th May 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.672 of 2010, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For three months. The appellant has questioned the correctness of the said impugned judgment and order dated 11th May 2012. 2. The facts which can be enumerated from the record, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW-17 Mr. Santosh G. Doke, Police Sub Inspector was attached to Rajgad police station since 15.7.2009. On 7.7.2010, at about 9 a.m., he was on patrolling duty. At that time he received information from Nasrapur police station that one person was murdered at Kondhanpur. He immediately rushed to Kondhanpur along with his staff and reached the spot which wa...
Sharda Poly Colours Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Sanjay
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Admitted. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for both sides. 2. This petition takes exception to the order of issuance of process passed by the 31st Joint Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Nagpur in Criminal Complaint Case No.22888 of 2013 and the order passed in Criminal Revision No.25 of 2014 whereby revision preferred by the petitioners against the order of issuance of process came to be rejected. 3. Facts in brief necessary to understand the controversy involved can be stated as follows- Respondent/original complainant has filed above numbered Complaint under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging therein that petitioner No.1/Ori.Accused No.1 is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 of which petitioners Nos.2 to 6/ori. accused are the Directors and are responsible for its day to day business affairs. Respondent is a Chartered Accountant by profession and since 2006, he is worki...
Subhash @ Ashok Bhimrao Badhiye Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned counsel Mr. Bramhe is heard on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Bhagde is heard on behalf of the State. 3. As far as the incident in question is concerned, the evidence of witnesses appears to be acceptable. The learned counsel Mr. Bramhe has also not argued much on the issue of reliability of those witnesses. However, it is submitted that the act committed by the appellant would not amount to offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It was brought to my notice that there was no intention to cause death inasmuch as the incident had taken place on a spur of moment when the injured was driving the cycle-rickshaw and the appellant felt that he was driving his rickshaw in the direction of the appellant and therefore, there was a quarrel. Only one injury was caused. The size of injury was 1-1/2 x 1/...
Fazal Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. By this Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the detention order bearing No.2013/MPDA/DET-1/CB-09 dated 26.08.2013 issued under Section 3(1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 by the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. The petitioner has raised several grounds for seeking quashing of the detention order, however, in our opinion, it is not necessary to advert to all the grounds taken in the Petition except ground No.b, which reads as under:- b. It ought to be held that, on 26th August, 2013 petitioner was already in judicial custody, as he made an accuse by an authority in C.R. No. I-34/2013. It is, therefore, unwarranted and unjustified to pass an order of detention while a person is in custody. This shows non-application of mind of the detaining authority. The petitioner says that there were no compelling reasons to pass the...
Nanasaheb Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and award of claim petition No.47 of 2007, which was pending before the Claims Tribunal, Beed. The Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company and only on that point the decision is challenged by the original respondent No.1, owner. Heard learned counsels for the appellant, owner and Insurance Company. Learned counsel for claimants was also heard. 2. The accident took place on 5.2.2007 at about 2.00 p.m. on Padalsingi-Pathardi Road, within the jurisdiction of Chaklamba police station. Deceased was present in the minidoor bearing No.MH-23-4386. It is the case of the claimants that deceased Suresh was present in the aforesaid vehicle with his goods, as owner of goods. According to them, goods were gunny bags and wooden stumps (balli). It is contended that due to rash and negligent driving of the mini-door by its driver, respondent No.1, the vehicle turned turtle. Suresh died on the spot in the accident. Claim was made by widow aged about 29 y...
K.K. Gupta, Income-tax Officer Vs. Dev Kumar Agarwal and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay thereby setting aside the judgment of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai and acquitting respondent No.1 from the charges under section 193 read with 191 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The appellant is an Income-tax Officer through whom the income-tax department has filed this Appeal. One K.K. Gupta, 1st Income-tax Officer of A-II Ward, Mumbai had lodged the complaint against the respondent for committing offence of perjury under section 193 r/w. 191 of the Indian Penal Code. On 8th January, 1975 said Income-tax officer along with his staff had searched the residential premises of respondent No.1 at Ocean View, Warden Road, Mumbai. During the search, they found huge quantity of silver and gold coins, miniature paintings, foreign currency notes. The coins were valued Rs.2,67,000/-. The miniature paintings were value...
Salgaocar Mining Industries Ltd. Vs. Roguvir Rajaram Paigankar and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 8/1991/A. The said suit was filed seeking following reliefs: (A) (i) That this Court be pleased to declare that the purported termination of the agreement dated 6th June, 1977 as modified by the Consent Decree dated 26th November, 1984 is invalid and bad in law and that the said Agreement as modified by the said Consent Decree is valid and subsisting and that it presently stands renewed for three years from 6th June, 1990. (ii) Consequent upon the declaration that the Agreement dated 6th June 1977 as modified by the Consent Decree dated 26th Nov. 1984 is valid and subsisting, the Court be pleased to declare that the said Agreement as modified by the said Consent Decree stands renewed further for period of every three year from 6th June 1990 till end of such period of three years during which the Court passes its judgment and order or till any such period the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »