Mumbai Court August 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.
Hari Sambhaji Bodare Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The Appellant / original accused has preferred the present Appeal against the judgment and order dated 5th April 2012 in Sessions Case NO.221 of 2010 thereby convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for two years. The Appellant has further been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for twenty days. The Trial Court has directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The Appellant has impugned the said judgment and order dated 5th April 2012 in the present Appeal. 2. P.W.10 Police Constable Mohan Gaikwad was attached to Kurduwadi Police Station on 7th May 2010 as Police Stat...
Ravindra and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
1. On 10th January, 1996 Vasant Mango Badgujar lodged First Information Report with Taluka Police Station, Dhule. On the basis of said F.I.R., Police Station Officer registered CR No. 14/1996 for the offences punishable under Section.s. 498(A), 306, 304(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section.s. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the applicants and one Narayan Revaji Badgujar. 2. According to the prosecution case, marriage of daughter of first informant, Jyoti @ Ratna was solemnized with Applicant No.1 in the year 1991, though in the First Information Report the date was given as 25/09/1989. According to the first informant Vasant an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid at the time of marriage. However after paying such amount, at the time of marriage, original accused No.3 Sumanbai, mother-in-law refused to take the bride to her village and that time she demanded gold ring and one fan. That time, understanding was given by village Sarpanch Rumsingh, Poli...
Monarch Project and Finmarkets Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
1. Heard the Counsel for the Parties. 2. The sanction of the Court is sought under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, to a Scheme of Amalgamation of Monarch Research and Brokerage Private Limited (1st Transferor Company/MRBPL) and Monarch Project and Finmarkets Limited (2nd Transferor Company/MPFL) with Networth Stock Broking Limited (Transferee Company). 3. Both the Transferor Companies, as also the Transferee Company are in the business of share and stock broking and portfolio management. According to the Petitioner Companies, the Scheme will provide an impetus to their growth, since all the Companies are engaged in similar areas of business. It will also result in enhancing their scale of operations and reduction in, and/or optimization of overhead costs, administrative, managerial and other expenditure. It will also lead to operational rationalization, organizational efficiency and optimal utilisation of resources. It will also help in improving economies of scale and ...
M/s. Val Colour Arts, Mumbai and Another Vs. Sandesh Ramesh Bhosle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
1. The petitioner (employer) invokes Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the following: (i) Judgment and order dated 11 May 2007 passed by the First Labour Court, Mumbai, in Complaint (ULP) No.346 of 2003; (ii) Judgment and order dated 6 February 2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, in Revision Application (ULP) No.135 of 2007. 2. By the aforesaid two orders (hereafter referred to as 'the impugned orders') the employer has been directed to reinstate the respondent (employee) with continuity of services from 9 April 2003 and back-wages to the extent of fifty percent. The impugned orders hold and declare that the employer has engaged in unfair labour practices under Items (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('said Act'). 3. The case of the respondentemployee is that he was employed by the employer, w.e.f. 12 June 1999 under the designation 'site supervisor' o...
Shivraj and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. A very short question has been raised in the present petition as to whether two First Information Reports in respect of the same transaction are permissible. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. and learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice the written complaint filed by respondent no.2 to the Police Inspector, Begampura Police Station, Aurangabad (Shahar), on 2.11.2013. Learned Counsel further brought to our notice the endorsement made below the said application by the Duty Officer, Police Station, Begampura, Aurangabad ( Shahar). The endorsement reveals that the said FIR was entered into Station Diary at Sr.No.306/2013, entry No.51, at 21.50 hours. The endorsement further reveals that on orders of the Police Inspector, the matter is handed over for further inquiry to Beat H...
Abhishek Shankarrao Thakare and Others Vs. The District Deputy Registr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Heard. Rule. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The order dated 24.12.2013, passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal, under Section 45(1) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the APMC Act') superseding the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ghatanji (hereinafter referred to as 'APMC, Ghatanji') and appointing an administrator to look after the affairs of the said Market Committee, is under challenge in the present petition. Petitioners are the members of the Board of Directors of the APMC, Ghatanji. On the date of passing of the impugned order, petitioner no.1 was the Chairman (Sabhapati) of the said Market Committee. 3. Facts giving rise for filing of the present petition are, in brief, thus: Shri Prakash Dhande, who claims himself to be an active worker of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, preferred two...
Dr. Omprakash Lalbaji Kingaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present Revision, the applicant is questioning the correctness and legality of the order, dated 4.1.2001, passed by the learned Special Judge, Latur, in Crime No.119 of 2000, by which by way of one line order, by which 'B' summary submitted by the investigating agency was granted by the learned Special Judge. 2. I have heard Shri H.M.Salve, learned counsel for the revision applicant and Smt. Pratibha Bharad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. The complainant Dr. Omprakash Kingaonkar lodged a report with police station Ahmedpur on 28.9.2000. Since the said report was disclosing a cognizable office, the police station officer, Ahmedpur recorded a first information report bearing No.119 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 294, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Atrocities Act') against one Ba...
Abhishek Shankarrao Thakare and Others Vs. The District Deputy Registr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Heard. Rule. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The order dated 24.12.2013, passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal, under Section 45(1) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the APMC Act') superseding the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ghatanji (hereinafter referred to as 'APMC, Ghatanji') and appointing an administrator to look after the affairs of the said Market Committee, is under challenge in the present petition. Petitioners are the members of the Board of Directors of the APMC, Ghatanji. On the date of passing of the impugned order, petitioner no.1 was the Chairman (Sabhapati) of the said Market Committee. 3. Facts giving rise for filing of the present petition are, in brief, thus: Shri Prakash Dhande, who claims himself to be an active worker of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, preferred two...
Shamkumar Vs. Suman and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Present Writ Petition arises out of the order, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Aurangabad, dated 1.6.2001, below Exh.8 in Petition No.E-83 of 2000. By the said order, the learned court below was pleased to reject the application Exh. 8 filed on behalf of the present petitioner praying to dismiss the proceedings initiated by the present respondent Nos.1 to 3 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. This writ petition was admitted by this court in the year 2001 and record and proceedings were called by this court. 3. I have heard Shri R.S.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Godbharle, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.4. Though respondent nos.1 to 3 are served and they were represented by their counsel, the learned counsel for them remained absent when the matter was taken up for its final hearing after the lapse of 13 years. 4. Present petitioner is husband of respondent no.1 and father of...
Shivaji @ Shivling Nagendra Gatade Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant, original accused, has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 17th March 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisingpur, DistrictKolhapur in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2010, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The appellant is also convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by this judgment and order and sentenced him to suffer 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of which to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. The Trial Court has ordered that both sentences should run concurrently. The appellant has impugned the said judgment and order dated 17th March 2010 in the present appeal. 2. The facts which can be enumerated from the record, may brief...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »