Mumbai Aurangabad Court August 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Laxmibai W/O Ganesh Parke, Age 35 Years, and ors.Vs. the State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1) All the petitioners are agriculturists having their lands at villages Kushnoor, Ghungrala and Saverkheda, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. It is the contention of the petitioners that though their lands are different, however action taken by respondent No.2 is common against all the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners have filed this common Civil Revision Application.2) It is the case of the petitioners that notification under section 32(1) and (2) of the M.I.D.C. Act was published in the official Gazette on 20.12.1993 and on 23.12.1993. The petitioners were not made aware about acquisition proceedings of their lands. The notice under Section 12(2) was served on the petitioners, when the petitioners were gone for accepting amount under the award. It is further case of the petitioners that they came to know about acquisition of their lands for the first time when they received notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. They have withdrawn the amount under protest and initiated to subm...
Shivraj S/O Kashinathappa Gandge. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1) By these applications, the applicant has challenged the orders dated 18.05.2010, passed below Exhibit10 in Criminal Misc. Application No.47/10 and below Exhibit8 in Criminal Misc. Application No.49/10 on the file of Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, by which the applications moved by the prosecution to keep the applicant present at the time of hearing of anticipatory bail applications moved by him, without granting interim relief, came to be allowed.2) Heard Counsel for the applicant in both these applications. Today, the applicant is present before the Court as per the directions of this Court. Also heard learned A.P.P. for Respondent State.3) During the course of submissions across the bar, it is the only grievance put forth by the Counsel for the applicant that as no interim protection was granted in favour of the applicant, the Court cannot insist presence of applicant at the time of hearing of anticipatory bail applications, even though there is a State amendment to Sect...
Raju Kisan Mane Age 28 Years, Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Police ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. The appellant, in this appeal, challenges the Judgment and order of conviction, passed by the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.8/2008. The appellant, has been convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. This Judgment and order of conviction, is passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmednagar on October 18, 2008.2. The facts in brief, necessary for consideration of submissions on behalf of the parties, are listed herein below :- (a) The appellant was the original accused. The appellant, is resident of Wadarwadi, Shevgaon District Ahmednagar. The appellant was married to Sangita approximately five years before the incident. The appellant and his wife Sangita were blessed with two children. Gaurav, was around four years old, whereas Aishwarya was ...
Charansing @ Chnya S/O Indersing Kadewale Age 36 Years, Vs. the State ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. This appeal is filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 28.11.2008, passed by the Additonal Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case. No. 76 of 2008, by which the appellant-accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, i/d to undergo further S.I. for two months.2 .The brief facts of the case are as under:- One Sunita Pawar, PW 1, daughter-in-law of Vitthal Pawar (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the 'deceased") resides at Tirupatinagar, Dhanegaon alongwith her family members i.e. her husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law. The appellant (accused) Charansingh resides near house of PW 1 Sunita. Accused owns a auto rickshaw. At the time of Dasara festival, Ankush, brother- in-law of PW 1 Sunita, had taken the Auto Rickshaw of accused for plying. While running the said Rickshaw by Ankush, the rickshaw met with an accident and it got damaged. Accused had deman...
Dinkar Fakirrao Adhav Age: 60 Yrs. Vs. Vimal Dinkar Adhav, Age: 46 Yrs ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2) By the present petition, filed by the petitioner/husband (original Opponent), under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, prayed to quash and set aside the Judgment and order dated 1.1.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions, Sangamner, in Criminal Revision Application No.7/2007, thereby granting maintenance of Rs.600/ per month to the respondent/wife herein (original applicant) from 12.7.2005.FACTUAL MATRIX :3) The petitioner herein married with the respondent on 22nd January, 1980 as per the Hindu religious rites since his earlier wife, viz. Kesarbai had expired. However, it is alleged that since the petitioner herein refused and neglected to maintain the respondent/wife, the respondent/wife filed an application, being Criminal Misc. Application No.335/2005 for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangamner on 12.7.2005 and copy thereof. is produced at E...
Kisan Sayaji Shelke, Vs. Madhukar Mohan Deshpande, Ananda Krishna Maha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Challenge in this petition is to judgement and order rendered by learned Incharge President of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad (M.R.T.) in exercise of appellate jurisdiction (Case No. 27/A92-J). By that judgement, the appeal preferred by the respondents has been allowed and the application filed by the petitioner for eviction under section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, "the HT&AL; Act") came to be rejected.2. Indisputably, father of the petitioner, namely, Sayaji Shelke was the protected tenant in respect of agricultural land Survey No. 52, admeasuring 9 acres 18 gunthas, situated at village Gokul under Bhokardan Tahsil. It is also an admitted fact that father of the respondent No. 1, namely, deceased Mohan alias Mohiniraj Deshpande was the landlord. The name of deceased Sayaji Shelke was recorded in the revenue record vide the relevant orders. A final declaration under the HT&AL; Act was made in his favour. He was found in possess...
Subhash Narayan Koli @ Saindane Age33 Years, Jitendra Narayan Koli @ S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. By the present criminal application, u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants had initially prayed to quash and set aside the FIR in CR No.56/2010 registered with Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal, vide prayer clause "B". It appears that during the pendecy of the application, the application suffered amendment and by prayer clause No.BB, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR and further proceedings of CR No.19/2006 registered with Shani Peth Police Station, Jalgaon.2. Record shows that vide order dated 08.12.2006, Rule came to be issued along with ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause "BBB".3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by learned APP. Also perused the charge sheets submitted in connection with CR No.56/2006 registered with Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal so also in connection with CR No.19/2006 registered with Shani Peth Police Station, Jalgaon. 4. In this application, in response to the notice, State has filed an a...
Vishwanath S/O Kondaji Pote. Vs. Raosaheb S/O Asaram Sawde and anr
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1 The appellant (original complainant) has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 22.3.2007, rd rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna in S.T.C. No. 1326 of 2006 acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and prayed for quashment thereof.2 In nut shell, the complainant's case is that there were cordial/friendly relations between the complainant and the accused and at the request of the accused, the complainant gave hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/ to the accused on 7.6.2005 for relieving the tractor and also towards his financial difficulties. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused did not repay the said loan within the period of one year in spite of making repeated requests. However, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 0489970 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Tembhurni on 4.4.2006 for Rs.2,50,000/. The complainant presented the said cheque for encas...
Sandip Devidas Thorat, Age 31 Years, Vs. the Principal Secretary (Appe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing, at the stage of admission.3. By the present Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prayed that the impugned order dated 23 April, 2010 passed by the respondent No.1 i.e. Principal Secretary (Appeals & Hearing), Home Department, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Appeal No.EXT2010/39/VS5, thereby confirming the order dated 24th December, 2009 passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. SubDivisional Magistrate, Sangamner Division, Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar vide externment order No. EX/SR/2/2009 be quashed and set aside.FACTUAL MATRIX :4. It is the contention of petitioner that he is resident of Kopargaon, Tq.Kopargaon, Dist.Ahmednagar and was issued notice dated 15th April, 2009 by the SubDivisional Police Officer, Kopargaon, Camp Shirdi, to remove himself from the boundar...
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Vs. the State Information Commissioner,hri B ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the notification issued by respondent No.3 - Joint Director of Education dated 12.9.2008, Annexure I, by which Principals and office bearers of Non-Government Colleges receiving grants-in-aid were directed to appoint Public Information Officers in order to comply with the Right to Information Act, 2005.3. In support of the writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are a Education Society registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and it does not receive any grant-in-aid from the Government nor it is funded by the State Government. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is fully covered by the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur and another...Versus...Maharashtra State information Commission, Vida...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »