Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Oct-25-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant Original accused no.3, challenging the judgment and Order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur in Sessions Case No.277/2012 (Old No.319/2009), thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 6 months. Facts of prosecution case, in brief, are as under: 2. On 30.05.2009, accused no.1 Vitthal lodged the report at Police Station Waluj (Exh.60) alleging that his daughter-in-law deceased Swati has not woke up as usual in the morning, and when he tried to awaken her she was not responding, therefore, he took her to the Hospital where the Medical Officer found her dead. On his report, A.D. bearing No.15/2009 was registered. 3. PSI Suresh Bhale (PW-5) conducted the inquiry of A.D. He sent dead body for post mortem examinati...
Tag this Judgment!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
Decided on : Oct-04-2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this Appeal is placed before us for deciding following questions of law, which are framed by learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram : R.C. Chavan, J.], when the Appeal was placed before him for admission:- (I) Does Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provide adequate protection to the parties from transfers pendent lite since such transferees are not required to be, or entitled as of right to be, impleaded as parties to the suit and cannot resist execution proceedings in view of provisions of Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code as amended by this Court? (II) Would plaintiffs' registering notices of their suits under Section 18 of the Indian Registration Act (though such registration may not be compulsory) not secure for plaintiffs more than what an injunction could secure since transferees, who purchase property, pendente lite in spite of such registration would be deemed to have n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-19-2016
CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION.................................................... 4 B. FACTS..................................................................... 6 C. MAINTAINABILITY...............................................12 D. LIMITATION..........................................................78 E. RELIEFS AND ORDER...........................................87 A. INTRODUCTION 1. The facts of the case are straightforward. The issues they raise, though narrow, are not. A very great deal of learning has been cited on both sides of the debate: some of the precedents are very old indeed. Counsel have argued that later decisions effectively upturn the older ones, even if they do not say so in so many words. There are two principal issues of law: first, limitation; and, second, whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is ousted in claim such as this because of the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 ( MPTA ) (Earlier the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Act 29 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-18-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 2. This is an unfortunate case wherein the petitioner who retired after 39 years of unblemished service with the 1st respondent, has been deprived of the benefits of pension under the Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note dated 27 April 2010, when admittedly he is held eligible for pension, the reason being that the petitioner did not deposit within three days, some amount as stated under the 1st Respondent's acceptance letter. In nutshell the facts are: 3. The petitioner joined service of the 1st respondent as a subordinate staff on 4 March 1967. After thirty nine years of service, the petitioner superannuated on 31 October 2006. 4. It is the petitioner's case that the 1st respondent had earlier entered into a settlement with the Bank employees and accordingly a Circular/Notification was issued under which employees who retired post 1995 (29 September 1995) were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Aug-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar has preferred one group of Writ Petitions and the identically placed Respondents/Daily Wage Employees in the said petitions have also filed the second group of Writ Petitions wherein the Agriculture University is the Respondent. For the sake of brevity, the Agriculture University in these matters shall be referred to as the University and the Daily Wage Employees, who are Respondents in the petitions filed by the University and are Petitioners in their own group of petitions, shall be referred to as the Workers . 3. While issuing notice, this Court by it s order dated 22.04.2016 had directed that the amount deposited by the Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri with the Appellate Authority (PGA) shall not be disbursed until further orders. 4. The University is aggrieved by the common judgment dated 20.10....
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-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 : 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 : 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!