Mumbai Court July 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.
Prabhu and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
1. The Appellants, father and son have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 307, 341, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" in brief). For offence under Section 307 of IPC, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the other Sections, different lesser sentences of imprisonment and fine have been passed. Sentence of imprisonment for the various Sections are to run concurrently. The Judgment of conviction and sentence was passed by IIIrd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed on 8th May 2003 in Sessions Case No.24 of 2002. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is as follows: (A). On 1st March 2001 complainant Nathoba Bade (PW-1) along with Vishnu Bade (PW-11) were admitted in the Civil Hospital, Beed. Police Official Sukhdeo Landge (PW-13) attached to the Police Outpost, received M.L.C. letter and he met the medical ...
Vinod Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
1. The Appellant accused was tried along with his parents for offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" in brief), or alternatively for offence under Section 304B read with 34 of IPC. While his parents came to be acquitted, the Appellant accused (hereafter referred as "accused") was convicted under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rupees Two Thousand. In default of fine, he has been directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rupees Three Thousand. In default of fine, he has been directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Thus, this Appeal. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as under: A). On 26th October 2000 one Anandrao Marotrao Jadhav of village Kaleshwar, Tq-Hadgaon, Dist-Nanded fil...
Raju Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Being aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.32/2012 dated 10.10.2012, by which the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and is directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The appellant and co-accused Santoshkumar Sitaram Dhruv were jointly tried in Sessions Trial No.32/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 201 read with Section 34 and Section 203 read with Section 34 of the IPC. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge of the Cour...
Devidas @ Sahadeo Sukhdeo Wankhede and Another Vs. State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. These two appeals can be taken together and disposed of by this common judgment since both arise out of the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola, dated 10th of July, 2014 in Session Trial No.108 of 2009. 2. Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2014 is filed by original accused no.2 Devidas @ Sahadev Sukhadeo Wankhade. Criminal Appeal No.463 of 2015 is filed by original accused no.1 Laxman Harishchandra Bhatkar. They will be referred to in the judgment by their original position. By the impugned judgment, both the accused are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- by each of them and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. (I) PROSECUTION CASE :3. The prosecution case, as it is disclosed during the course of the trial, can convenie...
Padma Thakore and Another Vs. Dilip Sumanlal Shah and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
1. Admit. Considering the challenge raised, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard forthwith. 2. The above Appeal from Order takes exception to the order dated 27/09/2013 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay by which order the Notice of Motion No.2995 of 2011 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein i.e. the original Plaintiffs came to be allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 3. The facts giving raise to the filing of the above Appeal from Order can in brief be stated thus: The Appellants herein are the original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to the suit in question. The Appellant No.1 has been deleted as she has expired during the pendency of the above Appeal from Order. The Respondent Nos,.1 and 2 herein are the original Plaintiffs in the suit in question being S.C.Suit No.2713 of 2011. The Plaintiffs are more than 70 years of age and the father of the Plaintiff No.1 is about 96 years old. The said suit has been filed...
P.S. Patkar Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 30 January 2014 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), dismissing the Original Application No.621 of 2012 instituted by him questioning imposition of minor penalty upon him. 2. Mr. Patkar, the petitioner who appears in person, has made oral submissions as also submitted a written synopsis, in support of the contentions raised by him in this petition. Mr. Patkar has submitted that the Enquiry Officer had, in fact, exonerated the petitioner. The report of the Enquiry Officer was in fact accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. However, on basis of pressure exerted by the Superior Officer, the Disciplinary Authority furnished the dissent note to the petitioner, almost nine moths after the copy of the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner. Mr. Patkar submits that this constitutes blatant disregard to the procedure prescribed, inasmuch as the dissent note is required to be furnished together with enquiry re...
Rajesh Steel Industries and Another Vs. Development Corporation of Kon ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
Dr. Shalini PhansalkarJoshi, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the Constitutional validity of Sections 41B of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('Act' for short), as also Rule 31AA of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Rules, 1959, as amended from time to time ('Rules' for short), to the extent of their retrospective application, from 01.01.1980. 2. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of assessment orders passed on 20.10.1995. However, challenge to the same is, subsequently, given up by learned counsel for the petitioners as the petitioners have already preferred the appeals against the said assessment orders before the competent appellate authority under the Act. The challenge raised in the petition to Constitutional validity of Section 41C of the Act is also subsequently not pressed into submission. 3. The basic dispute raised in this petition is, when an unit is established as per the Government Resolution dated 04.05.1983 which provides for a mechanism to calcu...
M/s. William Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Anil Shantaram Shinde and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
1. The petition challenges an order passed by the Industrial Court at Mumbai in an appeal under Section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ( BIR Act ). By the impugned order, the Industrial Court partly allowed the first Respondent's appeal against dismissal of his application under Sections 78 and 79 of the BIR Act. 2. The first Respondent was working in the Petitioner's factory as a Jobber in the Power Knitting Department since 1983. He was made permanent since 1986. On 22 August 1997, after office hours, the first Respondent is claimed to have confronted a fellow employee, one Mr.B.V. Pillai, abused and bet him outside the premises of the Petitioner. An office memorandum to show cause was issued to the first Respondent in relation to the incident. Finally, on 8 September 1997, a chargesheet was given to the first Respondent alleging misconduct under certified Standing Order No.20K, namely, drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in the premises of the und...
Renuka @ Balabai Nivrutti Bhise and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
Mridula Bhatkar, J. 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th December, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune thereby convicting appellants/accused for the offence of murder punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellants/accused were also convicted under section 452 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of three years. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Anil Shilimkar is a complainant. The incident of murder of Poonam Maharashtra Hindustani, aged 37 years, took place on 25th December, 2005 near Shivdarshan at Parvati. The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. The deceased and appellants are residing in the same building and are neighbours. They used to quarrel. Anil Shilimkar is cousin of Poonam. On 25th December, 2005 at about 12 noon he received Poonam's call informing that accused No.1 Ni...
Shankarlal Sandhuram Master and Others Vs. Kedargir Guru Harigir (Sinc ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalna in M.C.P. No.13 of 1991, the original applicants preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as follows: a] The applicants had initiated a proceedings under section 19 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 1950') for registration of Public Trust i.e. 'Shri Sheriche Mahadev Mandir', Jalna. Said inquiry was numbered as 23 of 1983. The applicants have mentioned names of five persons as the trustees and the mode of succession shown as surviving trustees to appoint new trustee. The main object of the trust is shown as religious one and to continue customs and functions to be held in the said temple, to held the annual fair on every Nagpanchami day to feed the Saints and to maintain the Dharmashala in the temple premises. The movable property sought to be registered is shown as pooja utensils worth R...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »