Mumbai Court November 2015 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.
Iqlak Fakir Mohammad Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-2015
Oral Judgment: (PDr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The Appellant / Original Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.230 of 2006, who stands convicted by the Judgment and Order dated 15th January, 2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, has preferred this Appeal challenging his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 380 of the IPC. By the impugned Judgment, Appellant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for nine months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, whereas he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for nine months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for three months for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the IPC. All the substantive sentences are to run concurrently and he is he...
Sangita Banshiram Jajage and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. 2. Writ Petition No. 10484 of 2012 takes exception to the order dated 8th November, 2012 passed by Respondent No.2, thereby regularizing the services of Respondent No.5 Smt. Vaishali Digambar Choudhari w.e.f. 15th July, 2008. The petitioner seeks further directions to Respondents to grant B.Ed. Pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 1st June, 2008. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner, who possesses the qualification of S.S.C., D.Ed., B.A. (English), M.A. (English) and B.Ed. (English and Marathi method), was appointed as assistant teacher in the year 1993 by following due procedure. It is submitted that, at the relevant time, 61 periods workload per week was available for teaching English subject, but only one teacher i.e. B.N. Kotkar was available to teach the said subject. It is submitted that, one teacher namely ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›