Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-19-2016
1. Being aggrieved by both the orders dated 25th August, 2015 passed by the learned District Judge 3, Nashik allowing the application (Ex.5) filed by the respondent (original plaintiff) in Suit No. 1 of 2015 and Suit No. 2 of 2015 inter alia praying for injunction against the appellant, his directors, partners, officers, servants, agents and representatives restraining from using the marks, trade marks or labels that are similar or identical to that of registered trade mark and copyright of the respondent in any manner during the pendency of the suit and for other reliefs, the appellant (original defendant) has preferred these two separate appeals. The parties in this order are described as per their status before the learned trial judge. By consent of parties, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by a common order. The parties have agreed that reasons as may be recorded by this court in Appeal from Order No.393 of 2016 shall also be applied to Appeal from Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Aug-11-2016
V.L. Achliya, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dt.23.11.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.25/2011 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed thereby convicting the appellants No.1 and 2 under Sections 302 read with 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant No.2 is also held guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2. In brief, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are summarized as under:- The appellants were charge-sheeted and prosecuted to face charge u/s 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and appellant No.2 was also prosecuted for committing offence punishabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-27-2016
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.765 of 2009 were the accused nos.1, 2, 3, whereas the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.753 of 2009 were accused nos.4 to 12 in Sessions Case No.168 of 2009 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur (hereinafter referred to as accused, as arrayed before the trial court). 2. The accused were tried for the offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 324, 336, 337, 435, 427 r/w. 149 of the I.P.C. and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and Section 3, 25 of Arms Act and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. By the impugned judgment dated 25.5.2009 the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 307, 324, r/w. 149 of IPC, 3, 25, 135 of Bombay Police Act and 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 and held the accused guilty of offence u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jul-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Session Case No.84 of 2012 on 20th of January, 2014 and sentencing him for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, the appellant is before this Court. 2. The prosecution case, as it is unfurled during the course of trial, is as under - When Bapuji Sayam (PW 10), Head Constable, attached to Police Station Chamorshi was discharging his station diary duty on 22nd of May, 2012, the appellant came in the Police Station and gave oral report. The said oral report was reduced into writing and it is at Exh.44. Shri Sayam registered an accidental death vide A.D.No.25 of 2012. The gist of the said oral report of appellant is that his second wife deceased Mamta committed ...
Tag this Judgment!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 : Apr-20-2016
P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, the learned A.P.P and learned counsel for the intervener. 2. By this application, the applicants seek their enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No.190 of 2013, registered with the Pimpalgaon Baswant Police Station, Nashik, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant no.1 was the passing officer and clerk of 'Shree Ganesh Sahakari Sanstha Bank Limited, Nashik' at the relevant time and applicant no.2 was the counter clerk working in the same bank. There are 6 accused in the present case; Sanjay Suryakant Kadam, who was the Manager of the said bank, the present applicants - Rajendra Govindrao Kunde, Shriram Chandrabhan More, who were the passing officer and counter clerk of the said bank and 3 other lady officers i.e. Sunita Gyaneshwar Wagh, Minaji Rambhau Nyaharkar @Meenakshi Sanjay Tope and Rupali Shankarrao Mogal @Rupali Sandeep Bhavar, who...
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!