Mumbai Court September 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.
Bapu and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellants “ original accused Nos. 1 to 4, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 21st July, 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Beed in Sessions Case No. 146/2011, thereby convicting the appellant nos. 1 to 3 [original accused nos. 1 to 3] for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.34 of IP Code and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- [Rs.One Thousand only] each, in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months. Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 [original accused nos. 1 to 4] are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of IP Code and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 Years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for one month. The appellant nos. 1 to 3 [original accused nos. 1 to 3] are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341 r/w. 34 of IP Code and they are sentenced to suffe...
Nagnath and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
A.I.S. Cheema, J. Introduction 1. Criminal Appeal No.211/2014 has been filed by Nagnath s/o Ankush Chate, original accused no.2 in Sessions Case No.10/2010, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine by the Additional Sessions Judge - 2, Ambajo-gai, District Beed. Criminal Appeal No.20S/2014 has been filed by the original accused No.4 - Mahadu s/o Namdeo Kendre, who has been convicted in the same sessions case under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine. Criminal Appeal. NO.228/2014 has been preferred by Patloba s/o Laxman Gutte, original complainant, the father of Ashruba, the victim who was allegedly murdered. This appeal has been filed by the complainant to convict the original accused no.1 - Jaganath s/o Narayan Gutte, who was acquitted in the same sessions case and therefore, this appeal is filed seeking convict...
Shamrao Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Through its Secretary, School Ed ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed with following prayers: B. To direct the respondent no.2 to grant the pay scale of Trained Graduate Primary Teacher to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment and to pay the arrears of salary admissible to a trained graduate primary teacher to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment, by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be. C. To quash and set aside the impugned order / letter dated 11.11.2014 issued by the Education Officer [Primary], Zilla Parishad, Nanded cancelling its earlier order dated 27.08.2014, by issuing a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be. The relevant facts as disclosed in the Petition are as under: 4. The petitioner is working as Graduate Primary Teacher in Swami Ramanand Tirth Primary Sc...
Baba Bapurao Mungale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present appeal, the appellant is questioning the legality and correctness of the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 19th December, 2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2011, by which the appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, and was directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The facts, which are just for the appreciation of the prosecution case, can be narrated hereunder:- 2. Wasudeo Admane [PW 1] lodged an oral report with Police Station, Wadner, on 12th November, 2010. His Oral Report is at Exh.16. According to the said report, the house of the appellant is situated near highway and thereafter, beyond the house of the appellant, the agricultural field of the first informant and his family is situated. The first informant and his other family members, ...
The Police Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation and Another Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard Mr. J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioners, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for the respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2 in person. 2. Rule. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. D. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. Respondent no. 2, who appears in person, waives service. 4. The petitioners/original respondent nos. 1 and 2 have challenged the order dated 3.5.2014 passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court for Goa at Mapusa in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2/2014, by which the learned Judge in exercised of powers under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. directed the petitioners to register an FIR against one of the accused namely Shri Caetano Silva under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act( hereinafter referred to as the Act? for short) and other penal provisions, in ca...
Banu Ramchandra Borgaonkar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
1. The appellants were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under section 363 of the IPC r/w section 34 of the IPC, 366A IPC r/w section 34 of the IPC, section 341 IPC r/w section 34 IPC and 342 IPC r/w section 34 of the IPC. The Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur, after holding a trial, convicted them of the offences punishable under section 363 IPC r/w section 34 of the IPC and 342 IPC r/w section 34 of the IPC. He sentenced the appellant no.1 to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/with respect to the offence punishable u/s.363 of the IPC r/w section 34 IPC and Simple Imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- with respect to the offence punishable under section 342 IPC r/w section 34 of the IPC. He sentenced the appellant no.2 to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 5(five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with respect to the offence punishable u/s.363 IPC r/w section 34 IPC and to suffer Rigorous Impri...
The Association of the Traders carrying the Food Business of various F ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties and at their request taken up for final hearing. 2. This batch of petitions raise a common challenge. The challenge is to the constitutional validity of the provisions of Food Safety and Standard Act,2006 as also to the rules and regulations framed thereunder. 3. Writ Petition No.477 of 2012 has been filed by the Association of the Traders claiming to carry on business in various food. The petitioner describes itself to be a registered association, however, without specifying under which law, it is so registered. The challenge as raised in this petition is quite broad inasmuch as in prayer clause (a) the petitioners pray for quashing and setting aside the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short the FSS Act?) as violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the alternative, a prayer is made seeking a writ of mandamus to quash and set asi...
Commissioner of Income-tax-24 Vs. Trend Electronics
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') challenges the order dated 25 March 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Following questions of law are urged by revenue for our consideration: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in applying the ratio of the Apex Court in GNK Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC) when the facts are contrary to the facts of the instant case? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal had ignored the fact that in the proceedings before the AO in subsequent hearings prior to assessment, the firm had neither sought for the reasons recorded, since by interference, they were already aware of the same?" 3. The respondent-assessee filed it's return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-09 declaring total income of Rs.7.67 lakhs...
Pandurang Lalasaheb Yadav and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. In Appeal No.1172 of 2007, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 31st August 2007 passed by the Adhoc District Judge 2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.79 of 2007 thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The State has preferred Appeal No.1223 of 2007 as contemplated under Section 377 (1) of Cr. P.C. for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court by the aforesaid judgment and order. Both appeals are heard together as they are arising out the same impugned order dated 31st August 2007 passed by the Trial Court. In the present judgment, we do not propose to mention the name of the victim girl in view of the provisions of Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code and in...
Yogesh Arjun Maral Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th February 2014 delivered by the Special court constituted under Section 28 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (POCSO Act) convicting the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, the appellant has approached this court by filing the present appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant had committed sexual assault upon the minor daughter of the First Informant Rupali Baba Gholap (PW2). The story is that the appellant and Rupali reside in the same building. On 6th May 2013, Sakshi (PW1), the minor daughter of Smt.Rupali (PW2), went to the house of the accused to play with other children who had assembled there. The appellant was alone in the house. The appellant managed to drive the other children out and closed the curtains of the window. He then removed the un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »