Mumbai Court July 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.
Vrushali Vilas Ambokar Vs. State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 10th April 2015 passed by the 2nd respondent in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act'). By the impugned order the 2nd respondent has directed that one Mr.Vilas Vithal Ambokar (for short 'the detenu') be preventively detained with a view to preventing him from smuggling of goods and has directed that the detenu shall be detained in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik. As averred in the writ petition, the petitioner claims to be wife of the detenu and as such interested in the life and personal liberty of the detenu. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the impugned detention order and the grounds of detention on the basis of which the detention order is made by the 2nd respondent as served on the detenu. 3. The facts ...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Anil Jagannath Pawar and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar has referred this matter for confirmation of death sentence awarded to respondent “ original accused Anil Jagannath Pawar in Sessions Case No.43/2011, vide judgment dated 16.10.2014. The Criminal Appeal has been filed by Anil Jagannath Pawar against death sentence awarded to him. The other accused No.2 Anil @ Piraji Sukhdeo Pawar was acquitted by the trial Court. 2. In brief, the case of prosecution is as under:- On 13.8.2011, at about 10.30 a.m., daughter of P.W.1 Eknath (hereinafter referred as victim) was passing on bicycle from near Gat No.415 at Dorhale, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar, belonging to one Nanasaheb Dange (P.W.3), and accused No.1 Anil Jagannath Pawar (hereinafter referred to as accused) dragged the victim girl, aged about 13 years, inside the field. She was taken inside portion of standing sugarcane crop and she was raped and murdered. The accused had come ne...
Dnyaneshwar Tauba Gonde Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 188/2013, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P. Code and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further S.I. for six months and further convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P. Code and sentencing him to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one month. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are as under: According to the prosecution case, the incident in question had taken place on 22nd February, 2013. On the day of incident, P.S.O. Wadod Bajar received the information and accordingly he registered A.D. No. 6/2013 and forwarded it to the Police Naik Pungle to carry out the investig...
Parvatabai @ Shobha Vs. Additional Commissioner, Commissioner Compound ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner who stands disqualified from continuing as member of the Gram Panchayat under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, the said Act) lays challenge to said adjudication. 3. The petitioner was elected as member of the Gram Panchayat in the elections that were held in October, 2012. It is her case that she was residing along with her father and other family members at house property bearing House No.134, situated at Dudhala which property stands in the name of her father. The respondent No.6 filed an application under provisions of Section 14(1)(j-3) of the said Act praying that the petitioner be disqualified on the ground that encroachment on public land had been made with regard to construction of property bearing House No.134. The petitioner filed a reply stating that the house in question was owned by her father and that she was residi...
Umesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
1. By the present appeal, the appellant has put to challenge judgment and order dated 21.08.2014 in Sessions Trial No. 60/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Sections 376 (1) and 506 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. This appeal was admitted on 11.09.2011 and record and proceedings were called in order to find out whether the applicant was entitled to bail. This Court, by order dated 11.11.2014 rejected bail application of the appellant and fixed the appeal for final hearing on 18.11.2014. SUBMISSIONS: 2. In support of the appeal, Mr. Kalwaghe, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court for an offence punishable under Sections 376 (1) and 506 of the IPC is clearly illegal and, therefore, accused is entitled to acquittal. In the alternative, he submitted ...
Sachin Tukaram Muneshwar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, thro ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
1. These are the applications for grant of anticipatory bail filed by various applicants in relation to the offence registered under Sections 376 (2)(n) of the Indian penal Code read with other sections of the Indian penal Code. Section 376 (2) (n) of the IPC being the main offence, the claim for grant of anticipatory bail is required to be examined particularly in the light of question of law that arises for consideration. FACTS: Criminal Application No. 309/2015 2. One Ku. P. aged about 21 years lodged report with Police Station Sindewahi, Dist. Chandrapur and stated therein that when she was taking education in D.Ed. College and residing with her close relative, she had a love affair with applicant-Sachin, who promised her from time to time that he would marry her and would not marry anybody else. In 2008, when she was studying in the 9th standard again, he had extended to her similar promises for marriage and with that promise committed rape on her and she allowed him to do so only...
The Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others Vs. The State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
Oral Judgment: (Mohit S. Shah,CJ.) 1.The writ petitioners and the applicants in the chamber summons have prayed for modification/variation of the order dated 6 October2005 of this Court in Public Interest Litigation No.86 of 2006 (original Writ Petition (L) No.3246 of 2004 and connected writ petitions) to the extent that the order contained in paragraph 8(iii) of the said order dated 6 October 2005 will not apply to the following plots in Malvani-Malad(West) and Versova-Andheri: Sr.No.Writ Petition No./ Chamber Summons No.Plot No.VillageName of Petitioner/Applicant society1WP No.176 of 201545, Survey No.263 (P), CTS No.3525AMalvani-Malad(West)Malvani Prabodhan Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha Maryadit2WP No.180 of 201557, Survey No.263 (P), CTS No.3525AMalvani-Malad(West)Malvani Anand Deep Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha Maryadit3WP No.187 of 201556 Survey No.263 (P), CTS No.3525AMalvaniMalad(West)Malvani Matoshri Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha Maryadit4WP No.188 of 201541 Survey No.263 (P), CT...
Vikas @ Sadhu Gendev Hagare [Mali] Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant “ Original Accused No.1, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.8/2011, thereby convicting the appellant “ original accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- [Rs. Five Hundred only], in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. He is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 r.w. 34 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- [Rs. Three Hundred only], in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days. Facts of prosecution case, in brief, are as under: 2. The complainant [PW-1] Sajabai Bhagwat Hagare is the mother of deceased Tukaram Bhagwat Hagare and wife of PW-2 Bhagwat Balu Hagare. On 05...
Sarjerao Rambhau Machale Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant, original accused, has impugned the judgment and order dated 14th October 1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.39 of 1993 thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts which give rise to and are necessary to decide the present appeal can briefly be stated thus:- (i) Shri Nanasaheb Ghadge (PW No.1) was police patil of village of Inamgaon. That on 19.8.1992 at about 7 p.m. one person by name Balu Machale had come to him and told that his uncle Sarjerao (appellant) has killed his wife Smt. Nanda by hitting stone. Shri Nanasaheb Ghadge (PW No.1) went to the spot of incident which was situated at Deokhal Vasti. He went to the house of the appellant. The appellant was present at the spot. He made enquiry ...
Rajesh Pravinchanda Rajyagor Vs. Nitin Harjivandas Rajyagor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act?), the petitioner seeks to impugn the arbitral award dated 9th May 2011 thereby allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner is the grand son of late Harjivandas Rajyagor. The family of late Harjivandas Rajyagor consists of his wife late Kankuben H. Rajyagor and his two sons viz (i) late Pravin and his wife Bhavna and (ii) Nitinkumar H. Rajyagor and his wife Rekha and three married daughters and also grand children. The family of late Harjivandas Rajyagor owned various immovable properties. The dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent. 3. On 21st April 2004, the petitioner and the respondent entered into an 'Agreement to refer disputes to Arbitration'. Prior to the date of said agreement, the parties had come to an understanding and settleme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »