Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jul-27-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-9, Nagpur, dated 20th of March, 2014, in Session Trial No.41 of 2012, the appellants are before this Court. The appellant no.1 was accused no.1 before the Court below whereas the appellant nos.2 and 3 were accused nos.2 and 3, respectively, during the trial. They will be referred by their original position in the present judgment. By the impugned judgment, the accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused nos.2 and 3 though acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 read ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jun-07-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No.4/2009 by which the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur convicted the appellant, he is before this Court in this appeal. 2. By the impugned order of conviction, the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count, he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. 3. The facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are stated hereunder:- Mohan Makde (PW4) is the Sarpancha of village Welgaon. On 13.08.2008, when he was available at his house, some boys from the village had come to him at 12.30 noon. They inform...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-06-2016
A.S. Oka, J. 1. As per the administrative order dated 17th November 2015 passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this group of Petitions has been specifically assigned to this specially constituted Bench. OVERVIEW 2. The challenge in this group of Petitions is to various provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 (for short Animal Preservation Act ) as amended by the Maharashtra Animal Preservation(Amendment)Act,1995 (for short the Amendment Act ). The Amendment Act received the assent of the Hon'ble President of India on 4th March 2015. By the Amendment Act, in addition to existing prohibition on the slaughter of cows, a complete prohibition was imposed on slaughter of bulls and bullocks in the State. A ban was imposed on possessing the flesh of cow, bull or bullock slaughtered within and outside the State. Moreover, by introducing Section 9B, at the trial of certain offences, a negative burden was put on the accused. 3. Before we deal with the facts of each P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-10-2016
Cav Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. On 30 March 2012, while dealing with Writ Petition No.126 of 2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court was confronted with two judgments, both rendered by Division Benches of this Court, on the point involved, namely whether a retired teacher can be a member of the Inquiry Committee to inquire into the misconduct of Respondent no.1 appointed as Assistant Teacher in Petitioner no.2 school? 2. The management was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings of the School Tribunal: firstly, that the constitution of the inquiry committee was defective; And secondly, that the inquiry and the punishment imposed on this teacher were both bad in law. The School Tribunal therefore directed the management to reinstate the School Teacher with full back wages but reserving liberty to the management to conduct a fresh inquiry against him. 3. One Division Bench sitting at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.5867 of 2008 (Leelatai d/o. Annapa Patil Vs. The State o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The Appellant, who stands convicted by the Judgment and Order dated 30th March 2009 of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No.700 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months; and an imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one year, respectively, by this Appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the Appeal can be stated as follows:- On 29th August 2002, PW-1 PSI Jayendra Sawant was on night duty at Pant Nagar Police Station, Ghatkopar. At about 12:55 am, he received secret information that the thieves, who had stolen away vehicle, are in Sai Leela Hotel at Ghatkopar. He, therefore, gave message to PW-4 Head Constable Rajendra Ghadge, who was on night patrolling duty, to come to Sai Leela Hotel. He also rushed to the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-11-2016
G.S. Patel J. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction........................................................................ 4 II. Constitutional and Legislative Framework........................... 8 III. Facts in the Monsanto Petition ..........................................14 IV. Submissions and Findings in Monsanto............................... 20 V. Facts in the Subway Petition ............................................. 50 VI. Submissions and Findings in SubwaY...................................53 VII. Conclusion.........................................................................65 I. INTRODUCTION 1. These two Writ Petitions came to be tagged together presumably because they both raise issues of whether, in respect of the transactions that arise in each, the Petitioners are liable to a levy of service tax or sales tax. As it turns out, the facts are materially distinct; and as the following judgment shows, the two cases seem to us to be mirror images of each other: if one fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jun-30-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. These two appellants are before this Court since they are aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, dated 3rd of April, 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge - 4, Nagpur in Session Trial No.548 of 2009. By the said judgment, the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were directed to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- by each of them and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case which was unfurled during the course of the trial is stated herein under :- The Criminal Law was set into motion on 9th of August, 2009 by Smt.Sk.Jamila wd/o Sk.Abid, first informant, by lodging her report at Exh.62. When first informant had been to Police Station Lakadganj that time Pandurang Rangari, A.S.I., (PW 8) was on duty as a Night Officer. He registered the Crime vide Crime ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : May-06-2016
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. A vital issue emerges in this petition:- "Whether under Rule 16(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 ( MEPS Rules for short), issuance of a notice to the temporary / probationer employee before arriving at a conclusion that he/she has voluntarily abandoned employment would be a necessity?" 5. Considering the conspectus of the matter, I had invited the learned Advocates practicing in service law to render their assistance in this matter. I have thus heard the learned Advocates for the litigating sides, as well as, those learned Advocates. 6. The petitioner / management has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.9.2015, delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which, Appeal No. 5 of 2013, filed by the appellant / employee Respondent No.1 herein, has been allowed an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-28-2016
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule in each of these petitions. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned counsel for the parties state and agree that the common issues of law and fact arise in this batch of petitions and therefore, it will be appropriate if the same are disposed of by common judgment and order. Learned counsel for the parties further state and agree that the facts as set out in writ petition no. 9051 of 2013 may be adverted to, as the same are representative of the facts in this batch of petitions. Accordingly, this batch of petitions is being disposed of by common judgment and order by reference to the facts as set out in writ petition no. 9051 of 2013 for sake of convenience. 3. The challenge in each of these petitions is to the orders (impugned orders) made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT). The impugned orders have directed the State Government to consider the cases of the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-12-2016
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The Appellants, who stand convicted by the Judgment and Order dated 31st December 2008 in Sessions Case No.7 of 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for one month and for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w. 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer S.I. for one month, by this Appeal challenge their conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the Appeal can be stated as follows:- Appellant No.2 is the son of Appellant No.1. Deceased Lalasaheb was the brother of Appellant No.1. They had two other brothers by name Dattatraya and PW-4 Kundalik. Deceased Lalasaheb was given in adoption to one Yeshoda Kadam and his name was entered into the property of Yeshoda's husband Ramchandra Kadam. Appellant No.1 wanted to sell the ancestral property the agricultural land. His brothers Datt...
Tag this Judgment!