Uab Garant Service vs Hamburg (Imo No 9238818) (Ex-Zea … on 31 March, 2020

P.C. :-

1. Not on Board. Due to extreme urgency the matter has

been moved at my residence at 6:30 p.m. today (Tuesday).

Learned counsel tenders a copy of a screenshot of website

www.marinetraffic.com indicating that the defendant vessel is

within the territorial waters falling within the jurisdiction of this

court at 5:13 pm today. The said copy is taken on record and

Aswale 1/4

::: Uploaded on – 01/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2020 01:31:28 :::
marked “X” for identification.

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

plaintiff and also considered the averments made in the plaint. On

going through the plaint, I find that a prima facie case for arrest of

the defendant vessel is made out. In the present case, the claim in

the plaint is a maritime claim. They are the dues of the plaintiff

for providing services to the defendant vessel as evidenced from

the Purchase Orders and Invoices annexed to the Plaint. This

claim will therefore squarely fall within the meaning of a maritime

claim as defined in Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction

& Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017.

Manik Limbaji Munde & Others vs The State Of Maharastra & Another on 30 March, 2020

2. This Criminal Application is filed for suspension of

substantive sentence and for grant of bail.

3. Applicant No.1 is convicted and sentenced for offences

punishable under Sections 354, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 of the

Indian Penal Code and U/Ss. 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,

and appellants No. 2 to 5 are convicted for the offences punishable

under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code

and U/Ss. 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The maximum

sentence of imprisonment of three years is given to accused No.1

and other accused are sentenced to suffer R.I for two years and fine

is also imposed.

Ashok S/O. Digambar Lakhe And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 30 March, 2020

2. Copy of the appeal memo is perused by this Court.

Copy of the order made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,

::: Uploaded on – 31/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2020 00:01:14 :::
2 Cri.Appeal No. 297/2020

Bhoom Dist. Osmanabad, in Criminal Bail Appln. No. 37/2020 dated

13th March 2020 is seen.

3. The first information report is given by one hotel owner.

According to him, in incident dated 15 th February 2020 he was

virtually kidnapped from his residential place and he was assaulted.

He has made allegation that he is labour, who belongs to Scheduled

Caste. Present applicant No.1 Ashok Lakhe owed him some amount

in respect of catering services given by the informant and he was

not ready to make payment of that amount. Even further

allegations are made that from his pocket, cash amount was taken

away by the present applicants. In the said complaint, allegations

are made that the report was given to falsely implicate him in the

case of theft of battery of Solar Lamp. The first information report

is given on 18th February 2020.

Krishna Babasaheb Ugale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 March, 2020

2. This Court has gone through the first information report,

::: Uploaded on – 31/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2020 00:01:04 :::
2

which is given by the Naib Tahsildar. The incident in question took

place on 29th February 2020. There was information of illegal

excavation of sand and so the Revenue Authorities went to the spot.

The persons, who are owners of the vehicle and who were involved

in illegal excavation and carrying sand, obstructed public servants.

Allegations are made that the persons, namely Sachin Chalse and

his associates threw stones at the Revenue Officers. Present

applicant was one of them. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalna,

rejected the application filed U/S. 438 of Cr.P.C. bearing Bail Appln.

No. 273/2020 by holding that provision of section 149 of I.P.C. is

used and as there is section 307 of I.P.C., which is punishable with

life imprisonment, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

Govind Vitthal Kotule vs The State Of Maharastra on 30 March, 2020

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant for the

interim relief. Seen the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions

Judge, Bhoom Dist. Osmanabad. Seen the copy of F.I.R., complaint

::: Uploaded on – 31/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2020 00:01:01 :::
2 A.B.A. No. 359/2020

dated 6th March 2020 by present applicant given to the Tahsildar in

respect of illegal excavation of sand and the copy of panchnama

prepared by the Revenue Authority in respect of illegal excavation of

sand. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that on the

basis of the complaint made by the present applicant, action was

taken against uncle of informant of the present matter and due to

that false F.I.R. is lodged against him. Allegations are made by the

informant that present applicant demanded Rs. 50,000/- as ransom

money for not making complaint against the informant. The

informant is running a fair price shop.

Shaikh Farukh @ Shaikh Sharukh … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 March, 2020

2. Both the sides are heard.

3. This Court has seen the copy of the first information

report. Incident in question took place on 25th December 2019.

There are allegations against present applicant that he intercepted

S.T. bus by using motorcycle, pulled the informant/driver down from

the bus, abused him and assaulted him in the presence of

Conductor and passengers. The first information report was given

::: Uploaded on – 31/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2020 00:00:44 :::
2 B.A. No. 280/2020

immediately and the crime came to be registered for the offences

punishable U/Ss. 353, 341, 332 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code at

Basmat (Rural) Police Station.

Pawan S/O. Hanumant Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 March, 2020

2. Both the sides are heard.

3. This Court has gone through the copy of the first

information report. Victim girl is aged about 16 years and she has

made allegation against present appellant that he was following her

with an ill intention. Her photograph was posted on whats-app by

the present appellant and due to all this circumstance, she gave

report to the police station on 11 th February 2020. The photograph

was posted on whats-app on 3rd February 2020. Since 27th February

2020, appellant is behind bar.

4. In view of the nature of allegations, the appellant is

behind the bar, and after hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor

and it is not certain when the case will be decided when there is

scare of Corona virus, this Court holds that the appeal needs to be

allowed. In the result, the following order is passed:

Ganesh Dadabhau Fatangare & Other vs The State Of Maharastra on 30 March, 2020

::: Uploaded on – 31/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 02/04/2020 00:00:38 :::

2 Cri.Appln. 991/2020

2. Seen the judgment and order passed by the learned

Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 10/2019

dated 11th March 2020. The appellants/applicants are convicted for

the offences punishable under Sections 307, 325, 427, 450, 506

read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the maximum

sentence of imprisonment of four years is given and fine is also

imposed.

3. Notice of the Criminal Application for suspension of

substantive sentence is already given to the learned Addl. Public

prosecutor.