Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Dec-19-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra, aggrieved by judgment and order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 30th August, 1995, thereby acquitting the Respondents for the offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: (i) That, the complainant Vandanabai w/o Satyanarayan Thakur is the resident of Gadipura, Renuka Mandir, Nanded. Vandana has two sons namely Dhanraj and Dhanprakash. She has one daughter by name Rajkumari. Vandana's husband Satyanarayan is electrician by profession and does the work of repair of fans and electric motors. At the time of incident, Vandana was residing with her husband and children in the house in Gadipura area. Satyanarayan has two married sisters namely Vimalbai and Karunabai. (ii) Accused and complainant Vandana at the relevant time were residing in the same Wada situated at Gadipura. Accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 are the sons of accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Nov-20-2014
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner-Indian Railways have put to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.01.2014 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Nagpur, in O.A. No.2094/2006, which made an order for grant of pension to the two widows of the deceased railway employee in equal share. In support of the writ petition, Mr. Lambat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the tribunal committed error in making the impugned order particularly when the marriage of the second wife/widow of the deceased railway employee was clearly illegal and in violation of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act being the second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife, who was not divorced. He, therefore, submitted that in the wake of void marriage of the second wife/widow, the tribunal could not have made an order, contrary to the law. He, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Oct-14-2014
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has that the impugned Award dt.14.2.2014 be quashed and set aside whereby the action of the management of the State Bank of India through its Assistant General Manager, Region VI (Disciplinary Authority) and Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) in terminating the services of the workman namely Shri P.C.Mahadole w.e.f. 15.9.2005 was held as illegal and unjustified. The punishment of dismissal from service without notice imposed against the workman was quashed and set aside by the impugned order and the workman was held entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and also to 25 % backwages from the date of his dismissal from service till the date of his actual reinstatement in service and with all other consequential service benefits. The petitioners were directed to implement the Award within one month from the date of noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-28-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. Admit. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge granting the appellant (original defendant) leave to defend the suit filed by the respondent subject to its depositing the rupee equivalent to Euros 11,37,866.30 at the rate as may be applicable on the date of such deposit within eight weeks. 3. The respondent raised indents upon the appellant for supply of certain goods on the terms and conditions contained therein. The same were accepted by the appellant. The documents were to be sent through the respondent's bankers being Dresdner Bank AG to the appellant's bankers being Union Bank of India. Pursuant thereto, the respondent manufactured and supplied the material. The documents were forwarded by the respondent through its bankers being Dresdner Bank AG to the appellant's bankers being Union Bank of India. The documents included the invoices. 4. There...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Aug-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 10/08/2006, whereby the reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 came to be rejected. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 10.08.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case no.35 of 2002, whereby a reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, came to be rejected. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, by Notification dated 16.03.1992, issued a notice under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, imposing restrictions specified in Clause (b) of Section 7 of the said Act upon the use and enjoyment of the land situated in the Village of Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka, for creation of a safety zone around Naval Armament Depot, Goa, being land in the vicinity of the Armament Deport in Goa, amongst which was the land surveyed under No.126/1 admeasuring 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-14-2014
Mohit S. Shah, CJ. 1. All these three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India purporting to be public interest litigation, have been filed by the same petitioner - Sambhaji Savakar Jadhav, mainly alleging violation of Guidelines for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), particularly the Guideline imposing 26% Cap on FDI in Insurance Sector. 2. In PIL No.34 of 2013, the petitioner is complaining about alleged violation of FDI Regulations by Future Generali Life Insurance Company Ltd. (Future Generali) and for seeking suspension of its licence and for removing its Directors and members of the Managing Committee. 3. In PIL No.42 of 2013, the petitioner is seeking a direction against Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) to : (i) levy monetary penalty on Future Generali for alleged FDI violation; (ii) to conduct probe into capital structuring by Future Generali and to direct IRDA to withhold its approval to the transaction of stake sale by Future Generali's any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jul-31-2014
1. The Appeals arise out of Judgment of conviction passed against the Appellants-accused (hereafter referred as accused- with numbers as given to them in the trial Court and mentioned above in the cause title) by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No.76 of 1999, on 18th January 2000. The 13 accused were convicted for offence under Section 365 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.). Additionally accused No.13 was convicted for offence under Section 368 of I.P.C. However, trial Court passed order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 13 of offence punishable under Section 363, 364-A read with 34 of I.P.C. For offence under Section 365 of I.P.C. the sentence imposed was of simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. For offence under Section 368 of I.P.C., sentence imposed was simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-09-2014
1. This is a suit filed for anti-suit injunction restraining the Defendants from proceeding before the Commercial Court in England in respect of the claim filed by them against the Plaintiff herein, being Claim No.2013 Folio 1380. The Notice of Motion seeks an interim order of injunction in the same terms. 2 The Plaintiff is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of selling and marketing medical products. Defendant No.1 is a company incorporated in England having its registered office at Ashford, Kent. Defendant No.1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and production of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. Defendant No.2 is an Indian company, said to be a subsidiary of Defendant No.1. 3 By an Exclusive Distribution Agreement dated 16 May 2011 (EDA), the Plaintiff was appointed as an Exclusive Distributor for resale of the products of Defendant No.1 in a defined territory, namely, India, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives. The Plaintiff was to import and distribute the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-20-2014
P.C.: A. SUMMARY 1. The Plaintiff, a professional film script writer, and whose father wrote scripts and dialogue for notable films, is the author of the film script entitled ONCE. The entirety of this script is annexed to the plaint at Exhibit B. The Plaintiff claims that a recently released film, Dhoom 3, infringes the Plaintiffs copyright in his script ONCE. In the suit, the Plaintiff seeks an order that he be given credit in the titles of the film. 2. The Plaintiff claims that he had delivered this script to 1st Defendants office. Three years later, the film Dhoom 3 was released. The Plaintiff saw the film. He says he then realised that the film and his original script were so similar that the only possibility was that the 1st Defendant and, in particular, Defendant Nos.2 and 3, credited as co-authors of the film script for Dhoom 3 (the 3rd Defendant being the director of the film) had infringed the Plaintiffs copyright in his original work. The Plaintiff then filed the suit. I wil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jun-11-2014
Oral Judgment: (Ranjit More, J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeal, the appellant is challenging the Judgment and Award dated 31st July, 2007, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.61/2003. The said land acquisition case was filed under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (the Act for short) for enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per sq. metre. The said reference has been rejected by the impugned Judgment and Award. 3. By the notification dated 16th March, 1992, under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi, the restrictions as specified in clause (b) of Section 7 of the Act were imposed upon use and enjoyment of the appellant's land situated in Village Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka, South Goa District being the land in the vicinity of the Naval Armament Depot, Goa. The Land Acquisition ...
Tag this Judgment!