Mumbai Court September 2016 Judgments
Uttam Vaiju Majukar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
Naresh H. Patil, J. 1. The appellant and other two accused were charged for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2006. The accused pleaded not guilty. 2. By the judgment and order dated 3/5/2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, acquitted original accused no. 2 Vaiju Shivappa Majukar and original accused no. 3 Waman Hiramani Jadhav for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/original accused no.1 Uttam Vaiju Majukar was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay find of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that all the accused and the deceased were residents of village Dewarwadi. The acquitted accused Waman...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra, Through the Special Land Acquisition and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
1. As all these appeals raise common questions of facts and law, they are heard together and being decided together by this common Judgment. 2. The challenge in these appeals is to the Awards under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). They pertain to the lands situate at Village Koli-Kopar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, which were notified on 3rd February 1970, under Section 4(1) of the said Act, for acquisition for the public purpose of setting up a satellite city of New Bombay. 3. First Appeal Nos.1954 of 2005, 1955 of 2005, 1956 of 2005, 1957 of 2005, 1958 of 2005, 1959 of 2005, 1960 of 2005 and 1961 of 2005 are preferred by the State of Maharashtra and they take an exception to the common Judgment and Award dated 19th April 2000, passed by reference court of Additional District Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.78/1987, 81/1987, 83/1987, 88/1987, 90/1987, 105/1987, 108/1987 and 594/1987. In these appeals, t...
Tag this Judgment!Balasaheb Madhukar Bende Vs. The General Manager, BEST undertakings BE ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2016
1. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian is invoked against the judgment and order dated 1-2- 2005 passed by the Learned President of the Industrial Court, Mumbai by which order the Appeal filed by the Petitioner being Appeal (IC) No.13 of 2004 came to be dismissed and resultantly the order dated 7-10-2003 passed by the Learned Judge of the 8th Labour Court Mumbai dismissing the Application (BIR) No.49 of 2001 came to be confirmed. 2. The facts giving rise to the above Petition in brief can be stated thus:- The Petitioner herein was appointed as a bus conductor by the Respondent No.1 on 5-4-1989. The Petitioner remained absent between 11-10- 1999 to September 2000 for a period of 43 days. It seems that out of the said 43 days, he had applied for sick leave for 25 days for which he has forwarded medical certificates, he applied for 7 days casual leave and the balance 11 days of absence was without any permission or application. In view of th...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Govindrao Patil and Another Vs. The Maharashtra Election Commi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2016
1. The above Application No.5 of 2016 has been filed by the Respondent No.6 to the above Election Petition who is the returned candidate for dismissal of the above Election Petition being No.4 of 2014 filed by Rashmi Digambar Bagal the Election Petitioner, challenging his election. 2. The election in question is to the 244 Karmala Assembly Constituency. The elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly were held on 15/10/2014 and the Election Petitioner and the Respondent No.6 were the candidates who had contested the election to the said 244 Karmala Constituency amongst other candidates. The Respondent No.6 i.e. the Applicant in Application No.5 of 2016 was declared elected having secured 60674 votes whereas the Election Petitioner had secured 60417 votes. It is not necessary to refer to the votes secured by other candidates for the purposes of the present adjudication. 3. The election of the Respondent No.6 has been challenged principally on the ground of violation of the Rules r...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra, Vs. Yuvraj Yesaji Jodgan and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
1. The State has filed this Criminal Appeal against acquittal of Respondents original accused Nos.1 to 4 (hereafter referred as "accused Nos. 1 to 4") under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("Act" in brief). The accused were acquitted also of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief). 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is as under: A). Complainant Suresh Sonu Padame (PW-1) (hereafter referred as "complainant") filed report at Police Station Pachora on 2nd December 2002. He referred to his family and stated that he is residing at Bambrul (Raniche), Tq-Pachora and works at the field of one Onkar Narayan Wagh. About 8-10 days back accused No.1 Yuvraj along with his colleagues was sitting near board of Sambhaji Brigade and when complainant was passing, accused No.1 Yuvraj told him as to on whose assurance he has become arrogant and had abused him. C...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Hanif and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
1. This appeal has been filed by original accused No.1 Mohd. Hanif and accused No.2 Akbar Khan Khudabaksh against their conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC in brief). The judgment was passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 27.10.2005 in Sessions Case No.48/2007. They have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. The case of prosecution in short is as follows: (a) The complainant P.W.2 Prakash Sapate has a Dhaba i.e. Highway Hotel, by name Sonali Dhaba at some distance from village Chopadgaon, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar on Ahmednagar Solapur Road. In the night between 14.12.2006 and 15.12.2006, he was admitted at about 11.35 p.m. at Gokul Hospital, at Karmala, District Solapur, which is run by P.W.5 Dr. Anil Motiram. He was admitted due to stab injury on his ab...
Tag this Judgment!Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. and Another Vs. M/s. Just Lifestyle ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiffs in a trademark infringement and passing off suit, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from using the word 'VOGUE' as part of their impugned trade mark JUST IN VOGUE or any other deceptively similar mark or trade name in relation to its goods and services. 2. The Plaintiffs are registered proprietors and users of the trademark VOGUE in respect of magazines, which are said to be published and sold in several countries around the world including India. Plaintiff No.1 is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, U.S.A. and is the proprietor of the trade mark VOGUE , and claims to be using the same in relation to its fashion and lifestyle magazine of the same name since the year 1892. Plaintiff No.2 is a wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff No.1 and claims to be a licensed/permitted user of the trademark in India. Though the Plaintiffs claim to be using the trademark in India through their ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the original accused, challenging the judgment and order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar in Sessions Case No. 25/2011, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC for short) and to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The background facts for filing the present Appeal, are as under: It is the respondent s case that on 18.05.2011, the deceased Naroji Rangnath Jadhav, resident of village Kiroda, had gone to village Pimpalgaon along with Shankarrao Mane and Chintaman Jadhav to attend a marriage. After attending the marriage, they proceeded to Loha by an autorickshaw. At Loha, they went to one mutton shop and purchased mutton and thereafter started proceeding towards Loha bus stand by Indira Nagar concrete road. There was a liquor shop located by the side of sa...
Tag this Judgment!High Court on its own Motion Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. The background of this PIL, coming before us, is that Ms. A.S. Shende, Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay visited Byculla District Prison on 25.4.2016 in view of directions of this Court. Generally women prisoners in Mumbai are kept in District Women Prison, Byculla, Mumbai. During the visit, one inmate / under-trial prisoner namely Shahana gave a requisition for obtaining permission to terminate her pregnancy. The requisition given by Shahana is part of this PIL. In the requisition, she has stated that she already has a baby who is five months old. The baby was suffering from convulsion / epilepsy, hernia, loose motion as well as fever. Shahana's health was also not good and she was suffering from repeated bleeding. Shahana was four months pregnant. Shahana stated that in all these circumstances, it was very difficult for her to maintain and take care of her five months old baby and herself and in addition, the baby which she was expecting, he...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Ashmit Motors Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Co ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.7.2010, by which, the respondent allotted the Subscriber Code Number under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 1952 Act ). The petitioner is also challenging the order dated 13.8.2015, by which, the Review Application filed by the petitioner under Section 7B of 1952 Act, seeking review of the order passed on 10.6.2015 under Section 7A of 1952 Act, has been rejected. 5. The petitioner submits that an ancestral property in the form of a land / plot was inherited by the two real brothers i.e. the petitioner / Director and his real brother. Since both of them acquired a right, title and interest to equal shares in the same plot, the petitioner started the business of selling cars upon having acquired the agency through a Car Man...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »