Mumbai Court June 2016 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.
Metal Tube And Rolling Mills Vs. Maharashtra Small Scale Industries De ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the petitioners have impugned the award dated 14th June, 2011 made by the learned arbitrator thereby allowing the claims made by the respondent and dismissing the counter claims made by the petitioners. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioners and the respondent had entered into an agreement on 23rd October, 1990 on various terms and conditions. It is the case of the petitioners that under the said agreement dated 23rd October, 1990, the respondent had agreed to import the raw material for and on behalf of the petitioners. The respondent agreed to act as an agent of the petitioners for the sourcing of electrolytic copper wire bars, copper scrap and brass scrap of various qualities as per the indent and/or orders that may be placed by the petitioners upon the respondent from time to time. 3. A dispute arose between the parties under the sai...
Deepak Shankarrao Borekar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Session Case No.46 of 2010, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant is further held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. The learned Sessions Judge also convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, the appellan...
Mangal Sanjay Gaikwad Vs. Sanjay Chandu Gaikwad
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
Per Court: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.1.2016 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, by which, the Criminal Revision Petition No.124 of 2014, filed by the respondent was partly allowed. 2. This Court had issued notice to the sole respondent on 4.5.2016. Office remark indicates that the respondent has been served. No appearance has been entered by the respondent, either in person or through an Advocate, despite Court notice. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Ardhapur, seeking maintenance from the respondent. It was contended that the petitioner's marriage was solemnized with the respondent by following the religious rites and rituals in March 2002. She had cohabited with the respondent for a period of about three years and a male child was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, due t...
Somnath Dattatray Thube and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
P.C. 1. The Applicants/ accused in Crime No.137 of 2015 for the offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 468, 120B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Vani Police Station, Dist. Nashik, at the instance of Anil Madhavrao Davane, who is a member of the trust named as "Maharudra Hanuman Seva Samiti", by this application are seeking for release on bail in the event of their arrest. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants as well as the learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the applicants, by pointing out the affidavit filed by the applicants, has contended that for welfare of the citizens, a Scheme was floated by the applicants and an amount of Rs.650/- each was collected from 3670 members. However, because of the difficulties created subsequently, the entire amount to the tune of Rs.23,85,500/- came to be refunded by the applicants to the entire members except an amount of Rs.650/- payable to the son of the informant. This, accordin...
Chinna @ Jitu Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Trial No.9 of 2006 dated 19.06.2014 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month, the appellant has approached this Court. 2. The prosecution story as could be gathered from the material placed on record is thus:- Deceased Ashok was residing along with his family members in residential quarters in Rayyatwari Colliery, Chandrapur. PW10 Karnadhar and PW11 Nitin are his sons where...
Rakesh Kisan Nagarale Vs. The State of Maharashtra through P.S.I. and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
1. The appellant - original accused has been convicted under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in brief) and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Under Section 376 of the I.P.C., he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule vide judgment dated 27.5.2015 passed in Special Case No.55/2014. The present appeal is against the conviction and sentence. 2. The case of prosecution in short is as follows: a) On 2.5.2014, complainant (I am not reproducing her name to conceal her identity in the judgment) filed F.I.R. at Sindkheda Police Station in the morning. The complainant is mother of victim girl, who was 5 years old at the time of incident (I am not referr...
Uttam Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. The appellants - original accused Nos.1 and 2, who were charged with offence of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in brief) before the 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.11/2002 on 7.5.2005, came to be convicted for the said offence. They have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.4000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Along with the appellants - accused No.1 and 2, other six persons were also arrayed as accused in the charge sheet. It appears, the charge sheet was required to be split up as the other accused were absconding. The trial has taken place with regard to the present appellants - accused. 3. The case of prosecution is as under : (a) Bibhishan Tandale (P.W.1) was running a Dhaba from his field in Tandalyachiwadi abutting Beed - Ambajogai Highway. The said Dhaba or hotel was near the Tandalyachiwadi within the area of Nekn...
Dadasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Sc ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. This petition takes exception to the order dated 31.08.2015 issued by respondent no.3 by which the proposal for approval of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher came to be rejected. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected as Assistant Teacher in respondent no.5- School after following the due procedure. The respondent/ Management vide communication dated 28.02.2014 sent the proposal for approval of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher to respondent no.3- Education Officer. However, respondent no.3- Education Officer rejected the said proposal on the ground that approval cannot be granted as all the surplus teachers were not absorbed. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 14.06.2...
Bapurao and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
1. The appellants - original accused Nos.1 to 3 are agitated by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them in Sessions Case No.133/2002 by 4th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, which is dated 25.9.2003. They have been convicted of offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in brief) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine and they have also been convicted for offence under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine. 2. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is as follows: (a) The complainant Manisha Rajendra Sayamber (P.W.1) filed F.I.R. Exh.22 with Police Station, Ambhora on 24.3.2002 and Crime No.15/2002 came to be registered at 2.15 p.m. She reported that, she resides near village Parodi (Taluka Ashti) at about half Km. from the village by having a thatched roof house on the field. She has a son, daughter and hu...
Dineshkumar Vs. Dhiraj Sureshrao Pawar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The notice was issued on 30th November, 2015 for final disposal of this case. This notice has been served and received by the respondent, but he has chosen not to appear before this Court. In view of the notice issued and the stage at which the criminal case is pending, this revision application is now been disposed of finally. 2. By the order impugned in this case, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Pulgaon has allowed an application filed by the respondent for the reasons not stated anywhere in the application. It appears that the learned Magistrate has invented these reasons for the respondent, though not in a manner consistent with the record of the case as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2014 (7) LJSOFT (SC) 78 = (2014) 5 SCC 590, relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision applicant. The record shows, as seen from the copy of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »