Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-21-2011
1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant (original accused no.1), by way of judgment and order dated 29th June 2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar, in Sessions Trial No. 10/2011, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 3. The factual conspectus and shorn of details of the prosecution case are as follows : (a) On 2nd August 2010, at about 10 p.m., the complainant PW 9 Sk. Gausoddin Sk. Bahib was standing in front of Basmath Police Station along with PW 1 Police Head Constable Sk. Raheem, and PW 2 Police Head Constable Prakash Neval after the roll call. At this juncture, they saw two persons of Shikalkari community pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-17-2011
1. The fight over ownership of the shares of an airline, whose aircrafts ply at high altitude at sub zero temperatures, has generated a lot of heat and litigation which has led to the filing of these appeals. Both the Appeals are filed for challenging the Judgment and Order dated 4th May, 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J) in Execution Application No. 161 of 2009 with Chamber Summons Nos. 551/09, 729/09, 603/10 & 477/11 and Notice No. 734 of 2009 in Arbitration Award dated 12 April 2007. The Appellants in Appeal No. 345 of 2011 (Jet Airways (India) Limited) was the first Claimant, whereas the Appellants in the cross-Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara & ors.) were the second Claimants in the proceedings of Arbitration to which a reference would be made in due course. 2. Initially, the second Claimants being the Appellants in Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Appeal (Lodg.) No. 293 of 2011) had alone filed their Appeal and on 6th May, 2011, we had passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-14-2011
1. This Company Application invokes the powers of this Court under section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("Act" for short). The Application is by the Applicants who are a Public Limited Company, namely, Forbes & Company Ltd and a Private Limited Company Grand View Estates Pvt Ltd, both registered under the Act. They have prayed that order dated 5th September 2005 passed by this Court of winding up the Swadeshi Mills Company Ltd (company in liquidation), be permanently stayed and the applicants be permitted to deposit with the Official Liquidator attached to this Court an aggregate sum of Rs.86 crores as per the chart at Annexure A to the application. Then, there are further prayers for making payment of this sum to the secured creditors, workers and employees of the company. After such payment, the applicants pray that the assets and properties of the company in liquidation be handed over to them and the Official Liquidator to stand discharged. 2 An affidavit in support of this co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Sep-29-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 01.11.2010, passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Revision Petition NO. 6/B/2010/AN. 3. The particulars and events which are disclosed by the petitioner in this petition are as under. . The agricultural land bearing Gut No. 680(Old Survey No. 296) admeasuring 4H.23 R situated at village Telangshi, Tq. Jamkhed, District Ahmendagar, was initially owned and possessed by one Maruti Babu Jaybhaye. Maruti Babu Jaybhaye died on 13.7.1955 and the name of his legal heir, namely, Bhagwan @ Ganpati S/o Maruti Jaybhaye was recorded in the 7/12 extract vide mutation entry No.2300. . It is further contended that the said Bhagwan @ Ganpati is the father of petitioner and he was in actual possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Sep-21-2011
1. The tenant has questioned order dated 02.05.2011 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 434/2011 and the judgment dated 28.02.2011 in Writ Petition No.132/2011, delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Writ Petition was filed by the appellant / tenant challenging concurrent judgments and decrees of his eviction passed by the Small Causes Court, under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1999 Act" for short) and the Appellate Court confirming it. The learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of tenant that both the Courts below have not considered whether partial eviction of tenant from premises would meet the needs of respondent / landlord. This requirement of Section 16[2] of the 1999 Act, is found to be not satisfied, hence the matter came to be remanded to the Appellate Court for recording additional evidence, if any, and to decide it after giving parties due opportunity. 2. This judgment dated 28.02.2011 was then questioned in Misc. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-16-2011
1. This common judgment will dispose of both the petitions together, as common questions arise for consideration therein. The former petition is filed by Vibgyor High School. The second petition is filed by Rustom Kerawalla Foundation for the same reliefs. 2. By the former petition, viz., Writ Petition No.1919 of 2009, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- school, which claims to be a minority private unaided school engaged in running a primary and secondary school under affiliation from Council for Indian Certificate of Secondary Examination (ICSE), International General Certificate of Secondary Education, University of Cambridge, U.K. (IGCSE) and offering National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) Curriculum, has taken exception to the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Education, respondent No. 2, dated 3rd July, 2009 and 4th September, 2009. Further, the petitioner-school prays for consequential relief of restraining respondents No. 1 and 2 by themse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-26-2011
Top of Form 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner- Radiological & Imaging Association (State Chapter- Jalna) (hereafter referred to as "the petitioner" or "the Association") has challenged the circular dated 14 January 2011 of Collector and District Magistrate, Kolhapur (exhibit `F') requiring the Radiologists and Sonologists to submit on-line form F under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules, 2003. The Association has also challenged the circular dated 10 March 2010 (exhibit `A') issued by the Collector in which reference is made to the workshop of doctors, sonologists and radiologists of Kolhapur held on 8 March 2010 and to the discussion at the said workshop for installation of SIOB (silent observer) for all the sonography machines, as a part of `save the baby' campaign for improving sex ratio in the district. 2. The petitioner-association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, formed for pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Aug-12-2011
Top of Form 1. The Writ Petition has been filed by the workers employed with the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar i.e. the respondent herein. Complaint (ULP) No. 141 of 1987 was filed under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act") by the petitioners seeking permanency in service. The Industrial Court by its order dated 4th April, 1990 declared that the respondent had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The respondent was directed to accord the petitioners the status and benefits of permanency with effect from 1st July, 1987. The Industrial Court also directed the respondent to fix the salary and allowance of the petitioners in the time scale as per the posts held by them and to further pay them all monetary benefits, including bonus on or before 30th June, 1990, failing whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-08-2011
JUDGMENT: 1 The Appellant , a young doctor who became a victim of paraplegia as a result of injuries sustained in a motor accident has taken an exception to the judgment and award made by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which his claim 2 FA.717.99.doc for compensation has been partly allowed. The Appellant met with than accident on 15 December, 1993. He met with an accident when he was about 25 and half years old and by that time, he had acquired qualification of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine (B.A.M.S.). As a result of fracture to 12 thoracic vertibra , He suffered from complete paraplegia both motor and sensory below thoracic 12 with complete bladder and bowel involvement. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is Rs.8,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum against the claim of Rs.50,00,000/- made by him in the claim petition. 2 The accident occurred on 08:30 am on 5 December, 1993. At the time of accident, the Appellant was proceeding towar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-05-2011
JUDGMENT : (Per B.R.Gavai, J.) 1. Since the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 26th April 2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.20/2011 has disagreed with the view taken earlier by two Division Benches of this Court in Sherbahadur Akram Khan v. State of Maharashtra,2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1 and Madan Ramkisan Gangwani v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1447 that the term "other advantage" used in section 2(e) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ("MCOCA" for short) has to be read ejusdem generis with the words "for pecuniary benefits and undue economic", the matter is placed before us. 2. The question, therefore, that we are called upon to answer is "as to whether the term "other advantage" has to be read as ejusdem generis with the words "gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic advantage" or whether the said term "other advantage" is required to be given a wider meaning". 3. We have heard Mrs.A.S.Pai, learned Addl.P.P. and Mr.Amit Desai, l...
Tag this Judgment!