Mumbai Court November 2015 Judgments
Sakharam Gunaji Chavan and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. These four Criminal Appeals preferred by Original Accused Nos.1 to 23 are arising out of the Judgment and Order dated 27th October, 2005 in Sessions Case No.79 of 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag. Hence, they are being decided by this common Judgment. By the impugned Judgment, the Appellants/Original Accused Nos.1 to 23 have been held guilty and convicted for the various offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 325 and 427 r/w. 149 of the IPC and Section 37(1) and (3) punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Each of the Appellant is sentenced as follows:- * For commission of an offence under Section 147 of the IPC, to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for fifteen days. * For commission of an offence under Section 148 of the IPC, to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for three months. * ...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharam Gunaji Chavan and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. These four Criminal Appeals preferred by Original Accused Nos.1 to 23 are arising out of the Judgment and Order dated 27th October, 2005 in Sessions Case No.79 of 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag. Hence, they are being decided by this common Judgment. By the impugned Judgment, the Appellants/Original Accused Nos.1 to 23 have been held guilty and convicted for the various offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 325 and 427 r/w. 149 of the IPC and Section 37(1) and (3) punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Each of the Appellant is sentenced as follows:- * For commission of an offence under Section 147 of the IPC, to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for fifteen days. * For commission of an offence under Section 148 of the IPC, to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for three months. * ...
Tag this Judgment!Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd. and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant- Super Max Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. (SPCPL?) against the Order dated 2nd February, 2015, passed by the Company Law Board, Western Region Bench [the impugned order?] on the ground that the Company Law Board (CLB?) inter alia granted ingress to Respondent No. 2 Mr. Rajinder Kumar Malhotra (RKM?) into Plant No. 2 of the Respondent No. 1 “ Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd. (VMPL?), which is in possession and control of SPCPL since the year 2010/11, without SPCPL being a party to the proceedings pending before the CLB, and which is the subject matter of an Arbitration Petition pending before this Court arising out of a Business Transfer Agreement (BTA?) dated 30th December, 2010. Even in the written submissions tendered in Court by SPCPL, it is categorically mentioned that, The Appellants' case is of possession of Plant 2 by virtue of the BTA dated 30th December, 2010 and the Supplementary BTA dated 18th March, 2011 (Appeal Pgs. 12-13).? 2. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Appa Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th May 2013, delivered by the Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.299 of 2012, convicting the appellant who was the sole accused in the said case of offences punishable under Sections 376 of the IPC and 506 of the IPC. The learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC. The learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge directed that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this court by filing the present appeal. 2. I have heard Shri Amit Munde, the learned counsel for the appellant. I have hea...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Bhauraya Kolule and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. Both these appeals are arising out of one and the same judgment and order dated 20th April, 2007, in Sessions Case No.233 of 2005, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur. Hence they are being decided by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment, the original accused No.1 Ravi and accused No.7 Siddhappa were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. They were also convicted alongwith original accused No.13 Sanjay and accused No.14 Gajanan, for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, original accused No.1 Ravi and ac...
Tag this Judgment!Shehzadi Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board of W ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
1. The revision is filed against judgment and order of Waqf Suit No. 52/2007, which was pending before the Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The suit was filed by present petitioners for relief of declaration and injunction. The order dated 18.4.2007 made by the Chief Officer of the Waqf Board in case No. 17/2005 was challenged and declaration was claimed that the order is illegal, null and void. Relief of injunction was claimed against the Chief Officer of the Waqf Board to prevent him from taking possession of immovable property on the basis of the order dated 18.4.2007. The Tribunal has dismissed the suit. Both the sides are heard. 2. There is dispute between the petitioners and respondents about the properties bearing C.T.S. Nos. 1199, 1205, 1201 and 1202 situated at Narayangaon, Tahsil Junnar, District Pune. Respondent Hajimiya s/o. Abdul Kadar Qureshi is a Namazi and he is also involved in the management of Shahi Jumma Masjid of Narayangaon. It is his contention that the aforesaid prope...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Jagnu Sarjare Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The appellant, who stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, by judgment and order dated 29.3.2008, in Sessions Case No.342 of 2006, of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by this appeal, challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts, as are necessary for deciding this appeal, can be stated as follows:- P. W. 2 Nasir Khan is running Maharashtra Scrap Centre at Chandanwadi, Pune. In the year 2006, the appellant, deceased Bablu and P.W.5 Raju Rajput, were working in his shop. On 4.4.2006 at about 6.45 a.m., the appellant came to his house and confessed to him that he has committed serious mistake. On enquiries, as to which mistake he has committed, the appellant informed him that there was quarrel between him and the deceased Bablu on that night at ...
Tag this Judgment!Savia Torres Vs. Leslie Trodoro Saldanha
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
1. Heard. Admit. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, 'A' Court, Panaji in Matrimonial Petition No.54/2012/A dated 31/10/2014, by which the appellant seeking divorce from the respondent is dismissed. Therefore, the present appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The appellant is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place at Panaji on 22/12/2010 and it was registered in the office of the Civil Registrar of Panaji under registration no.31/11 of the year 2011. The appellant is serving as Assistant Professor of Chemistry in Carmel College at Nuvem. The respondent is serving as an Accounts Teacher at Dubai. 4. It is contended by the appellant that the respondent is not performing his matrimonial obligations. At the time of settlement of the marriage the res...
Tag this Judgment!Anandrao Bapuso Patil and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Dr. Shalini PhansalkarJoshi, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by original accused Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the judgment and order dated 30th December, 2006, in Sessions Case No.23 of 2005, of Sessions Judge, Sangli, thereby convicting both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac each to the widow and the children of the deceased; in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows: The appellants are the real brothers interse. The appellant No.1 Anandrao at the relevant time was serving in Air India and residing at Mumbai alongwith his family since last more than 20 years. Appellant No.2 Balasaheb was agriculturist looking after agricultural land belonging to the family situate at Kavalapur, Taluka Miraj, District: Sangli. The agricultural land of deceased Bhanudas was adjacent...
Tag this Judgment!Mula Pravara Electric Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. The Maharashtra St ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
1. The proceeding is filed to challenge the order made on preliminary issue, of jurisdiction framed in Special Civil Suit No. 5/2011 which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. In a suit filed by present respondent, Electricity Distribution Company, a Company of the State Government for recovery of the amount of Rs. 23,16,98,49,078.85 (Rupees Two thousand three hundred sixteen Crore ninety eight lakhs forty nine thousand seventy eight and paisa eighty five) in respect of electricity supplied to present applicant, the present applicant had filed application at Exh. 63 for framing preliminary issue. Applicant had contended that the suit is barred by section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the dispute mentioned in the plaint is covered by section 91 of the Act. The trial Court framed the preliminary issue by the order dated 10.4.2014. Opportunity was given to bot...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »