Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-21-1996
Reported in : 1996(4)BomCR549
S.S. Parkar, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant who has been convicted for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for four months by the Judgment and order dated 20th January, 1982 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows:---The accused had been charged for committing the murder of one Arjun Ghare the deceased who was the husband of the sister of the accused by name Delfin. The murder is stated to have been committed on 19-10-1980 at about 9.00 p.m. at Dhobighat, Sonar galli, Kurla, Bombay where the deceased and the accused and their close relations were staying. The murder is said to have been committed by stabbing the deceased with a knife which is article No. 1 before the Court. It appears that two days before the incident in question deceased Arjun Ghare had assaulted his wife Delfin who is the sister...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-18-1996
Reported in : 1998BomCR(Cri)363
ORDERM.B. Ghodeswar, J.1. Petitioners Police constables have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order dated 29-7-1995 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur in Regular Criminal Case No. 27 of 1994 rejecting the application of the petitioners for recalling the summons order dated 13-7-1994 of issuance of process under section 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the judgment dated 19-10-1995 passed/delivered by the Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision No. 210 of 1995 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners.2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are as follows.Respondent No. 2 Manabai w/o Kashiram Tondle the complainant and the mother of deceased Bhagwan aged 29 years had filed criminal complaint under section 302, 304-Part II, 364, 324, 365, 325, 109, 448, 394, 118, 115, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and Shri K.J. Pawar (P.S.I....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-08-1996
Reported in : 1996(3)BomCR429; [1997]89CompCas121(Bom)
G.D. Kamat, J. 1. These two appeals can be disposed of under a common order. 2. The Special Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, in Suo Motu Contempt Notice No. 1 of 1995 by its order dated June 22, 1995, convicted the appellant, Bhupen Dalal, a notified person for not having complied with the order of the court for disclosing his assets on affidavit and upon having held him guilty, imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of 2,000. The court also observed while passing the order that undergoing imprisonment and payment of fine shall not absolve the appellant from filing the affidavit disclosing all his assets. This order is the subject-matter of challenge in Appeal No. 856 of 1995. 3. An affidavit disclosing his assets was filed by the appellant and upon that event, a review petition, being Review Petition No. 1 of 1995, was instituted seeking to get the order of June 22, 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-10-1996
Reported in : 1997(1)BomCR1; 1997BomCR(Cri)62
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Although this appeal is not on final hearing board and the bail application is only on board but, since the counsel for the parties do not object to my finally deciding it, I propose doing so; especially because the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is 6 months R.I. and he has already been in jail for nearly 1 month. In addition, I find that the paper book is ready; is attached to the bail application; and the record and proceedings have been received by this Court.2. The appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 8-7-1992, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nasik in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1992, convicting and sentencing him to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo S.I. for one month, under section 324 I.P.C. has come in appeal before me.3. Along with the appellant his wife Mangala Dinkar Kamble was also tried but, she was acquitted by the impugned judgment.4. The prosecution c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-16-1996
Reported in : 1996(4)BomCR267
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, on 27-7-1988, upsetting the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Jamod dated 28-1-1987, is challenged.2. One Basantibai, original petitioner, now deceased and represented by the present petitioner (for short 'the landlady') admittedly owned field Survey No. 6 admeasuring 13 acres 13 gunthas of land at village Pimpri Adgaon, Tahsil Sangrampur. One Smt. Manjulabai was the tenant in the said land on behalf of the landlady and for the years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84, the tenant did not pay any lease amount and, therefore, the landlady sent a notice to Manjulabai, but the said notice was returned with endorsement that Smt. Manjulabai was dead. One Narayan Kisan Khadsane, the original respondent (since deceased and now represented by respondent Nos. 1-A, 1-B & 1-C) claiming his rights as tenant on the basis of the will execut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-17-1996
Reported in : 1996(3)BomCR287; (1996)98BOMLR442
A.P. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. Malvankar, learned A.G.P., waives service for the respondents. By consent, petition is placed on board for final hearing.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Displaced Persons Act, 1976 read with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which have culminated in an award dated December 14, 1987 under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act.3. Mr. Mengane, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition, raised only one contention. Mr. Mengane urged that there is a violation of section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. According to learned Counsel, the award has been passed after two years from the publication of declaration under section 6 and as such, it is a nullity.4. Before dealing with the contention of the learned Counsel, few relevant facts are required to be stated.Petitioners' land admeasuring 1 hectare and 62 acres fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-18-1996
Reported in : 1997BomCR(Cri)254; 1996CriLJ2336
M.B. Ghodeswar, J. 1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara date 30-3-1991 in Sessions Trial No. 57/89 for his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Penal Code. 2. Initially the appellant and two other accused Shrawan and Gunda, were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, for causing the murder of Rahul Raibhan Naik a resident of Bela, Police Station, Bela, District Bhandara on 21-3-1989 at about 6 a.m. Prosecution alleged that there was quarrel between the accused and deceased Rahul and his father over construction of a house and about the encroachment on the site for keeping a way leading to the house of the accused. The quarrel took place on 18-3-1989. Subsequently they agreed to keep the space open for the way. On 21-3-1989 in the early morning Rahul was assaulted. He was sleeping in the courtyard. He shouted in the name of his wife Maya (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-18-1996
Reported in : 1996(3)BomCR351; (1996)98BOMLR448
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By these petitions, the petitioners seek to challenge the Awards all dated 6th August, 1992 filed in this Court and respectively numbered as 'Award No. 128 of 1992', 'Award No. 129 of 1992' and 'Award No. 130 of 1992'.2. The 1st petitioner in all these petitions is Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, a Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, 'the Municipal Corporation') and the 2nd petitioner is the Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Corporation. The 1st respondent in all these petitions are the Contractors registered with the Municipal Corporation and the 2nd respondent is the Arbitrator who was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in connection with the disputes which had arisen by and between the Municipal Corporation and the 1st respondents in respect of the work of reconstruction of Barrister Nathpai Marg in cement concrete which was divided into three sections i.e. Part I, Part II and Part I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-19-1996
Reported in : 1997ACJ372; 1996(4)BomCR298; (1996)98BOMLR184
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldana on 14-3-1995 rejecting the application filed by the applicant for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 1-3-1993.2. On 5-4-1995 when the writ petition came up for motion hearing, Mr Khapre, the learned Counsel for petitioner prayed for time to study the matter whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a 'Court subordinate' under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the 'C.P.C.') and if so, whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner could be entertained or not. On 17-7-1995 the notice before admission was issued to the respondents and in response thereto, Mr. A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.3. According to Mr. Khapre, the learned Counsel for petitioner, in exercise of the powers provided ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-22-1996
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1911; 1997(1)MhLj90
M.B. Ghodeswar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-3-1992 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 1990 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under S. 302 of IPC for causing murder of his wife Rekha. 2. The incident in this case took place on 26-8-1990 at about 11-30 a.m. in the house of appellant in Ram Mandir Ward, Bhandara. It is the allegation of the prosecution that Rekha and appellant married on 16-9-1989. It was a love marriage and as the appellant did not receive any dowry, from the parents of Rekha the appellant used to illtreat Rekha. The appellant and the deceased were residing in rented premises of PW 3 Madhusudan and appellant by pouring kerosene on the person of Rekha, set her ablaze. She sustained 100% burns. The appellant/ accused also sustained 20% burns. Immediately the victim Rekha and appellant were taken to the General Hospital, Bhandara where Dr. Manohar Mulkalwar (PW. 8) admitte...
Tag this Judgment!