Mumbai Aurangabad Court October 2011 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.
Devrao S/O Kisan Lad and ors. Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. All the petitioners are challenging the directions of the respondent no.1-State of Maharashtra issued vide Government resolution dated 21.03.2007 whereunder the pension granted to them under the scheme called as "Swatantrya Sainik Pension Scheme" has been withdrawn. 3. All the petitioners claim that they were underground freedom fighters who have fought for the freedom of the Marathwada region from the rule of the Nizam of Hyderabad. Arrest warrants were issued against them. They were duly granted the pension as per the scheme framed by the respondent no.1-State of Maharshtra. The same however came to be withdrawn in the following background : 4. On 16.10.2001 a news item was published in Daily newspaper, wherein it was published that one Sherkhan Walikhan Pathan was arrested for preparing forged arrest warrants to substantiate the claim of various persons as freedom fighters. ...
Syed MuzaffaruddIn Khan Mohd. Abdul Qayyum Vs. Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This criminal writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.05.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-7, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision No.227/2010 thereby setting aside the order dated 05.03.2009 passed by CJM, Aurangabad in RCC No.2264/2008. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the decision of this petition, may briefly be stated thus-The petitioner is the original complainant, who had lodged a report in the month of October 2008 in CIDCO police station, Aurangabad in respect of the incidents of cheating by respondents No.1 to 4 during the proceedings pending on the file of CJJD, Aurangabad i.e. MARJI (Miscellaneous Application Requiring Judicial Inquiry) No.663/2002. It appears that though the report was lodged with the police, no action was taken by the police. Thereafter, it appears, o...
Narsinha Pandurang Garkhedkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. As the common question is involved in both these Petitions, both the Petitions to be disposed of by the common judgment. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both these Petitions, followed by the submission of learned counsel for the respondent-original complainant and the learned A.P.P.. 4. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision in these Writ Petitions can be summarized as follows. For the sake of clarity, the respondent-Arjun will be referred to as "the Landlord" and respondent-Santu will be referred to as "the Tenant". This Santu is the petitioner in Writ Petition no.206 of 2005. It is not under dispute that the landlord-Arjun executed the lease deed in favour of tenant-Santu of the share of his agricultural land vide lease deed dated 26th November, 1986. It appears that this Santu-tenant filed an application under Section 32-O...
Shahnawazkhan S/O Abdul Raihmankhan Vs. Smt.Azarunnisa Begum W/O Mohd. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad below Exh.49 in Special Civil Suit No.265 of 2008. The original plaintiff, i.e. the petitioner has filed suit for specific performance against respondents. Plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of a land on 10.11.2006. The consideration amount for the entire land was fixed at Rs.37 lacs and amount of Rs.5 lacs was paid towards the earnest money. As per the case of the petitioner, respondent No.1 sold this land to respondents 2 and 3 hence, suit for specific performance was filed. Respondent No.1 in the written statement while denying the case of the plaintiff contended that the amount of Rs.5 lacs was given as a loan and agreement of sale was entered as a security document and...
Gopalrao Ambadasrao Borikar Vs. Anantrao Ramrao Deshpande and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging order dated 23-09-2010 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani below Exhibit-1 in Misc. Civil Application No. 45 of 2010. The revision applicant further prayed to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration of Special Civil Suit No. 01 of 1996. 3. The background facts which are stated in Civil Revision Application are as under : . On 01-01-1996 the revision applicant filed Special Civil Suit No. 01 of 1996 for recovery of damages against the respondents before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani. On 01-01-1997 respondent No.1 herein filed application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the above suit alleging that the above stated suit filed by the applicant is subsequent. On 12-03-1997 the trial Court stayed the hearing of the suit. The revision a...
Kalpana Udhav Disle Vs. Ganesh S/O Udhav Disle and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 31-08-2010 below Exhibit-25 in Regular Civil Suit No. 316 of 2009 passed by the 11th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed.3. The background facts for filing this writ petition as described in the writ petition are as under :. On 16-09-2009 Regular Civil Suit No. 316 3 wp10355.10of 2009 came to be filed for partition and separate possession against the petitioner, her husband and one another first wife of husband of the petitioner. The plaintiff N.3 left the house of her husband alongwith plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. There was no any person to look after defendant No.1. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner married with defendant No.1 i.e. respondent No. 4 herein.4. On 06-09-2009 when the aforesaid fact came to the notice of the plaintiff, she started cohabiting with defendant No.1. The petitioner herei...
Prem Mahant Sahani at Tadipar Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-07-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. All these four Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment as the Appellants in these Appeals, who all were accused in N.D.P.S. Special Case No.21 of 2002, were convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge for Greater Bombay by one and the same Judgment and Order. The Appellants were accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 29 and 20(b)(ii) read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act"). After holding a trial, the Special Judge found all of them guilty and sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. The Appellants, being aggrieved by the order of conviction and the sentences, have filed the above separate Appeals. 2. The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.957 of 2005 is the original Accused No.3, the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.393 of 2005 is the origi...
Shri V.S.Deshpande Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2011
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by Consent. 2. This Contempt proceedings are initiated on the Reference made to this Court by 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. 3. In the proceedings for grant of succession certificate, present contemnors have made a statement on record that the Hon'ble High Court had demanded succession certificate in the appeal pending before High Court. The contemnors were not able to prove that any such order was passed. 4. The trial Court, by passing order below Exh.1, called the explanation from the applicants therein as to why action should not be taken against them for making such false and irresponsible statement. 3 CRI. CP NO.1/2009 5. The applicants therein filed written explanation in which objectionable matter was incorporated. The statements, which were objectionable, are quoted in the reference. 6. This Court had taken cognizance and ordered that notice of show cause be issued against the contemnors. 7. The contemnors r...
Mangal Son of Tularam Warkhade Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2011
J U D G M E N T 1. These appeals, being disposed of by common judgment, are arising out of the judgment and order dated 15/5/2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Trial No. 18/2006. The appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 312/08 were accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3; the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 242/08 was accused No. 4; whereas the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 795/08 was accused No.5. The appellants shall hereinafter be referred to as the accused persons as per their numbers in the Sessions Trial. 2. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried for offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, I.P.C.) and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. Vide the impugned judgment and order, accused Nos. 1 to 5 are acquitted of the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. They are held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of I.P.C. and convicted ...
Shri Rajan Dhansukhlal Vora Vs. Shri Dinesh Bacchubhai Parekh
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT. : 1. This appeal from order is directed against the order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court on 3rd April 2010 in S.C.Suit No. 3203/2004 directing the counsel for the parties to make submission on the Notice of Motion No.1682/2009 on merits with a view to decide as to whether the preliminary issue can be framed at the particular stage of the proceeding. The appellant is the original defendant No.3. The respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff who presented the suit being S.C.Suit No.3203/2004 claiming following substantial reliefs: a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to declare that the occupation of the Defendant No.3 in the suit premises viz. a Garage premises admeasuring 200 sq.ft. situated on the Ground Floor of Suresh Vithal Niwas Building, L.N.Road, Matunga, Mumbai 400 019, is that of a wrongful trespasser who has been unlawfully inducted without the consent and permission of the Plaintiff and consequently the tenancy agreement, if any, executed by the Def...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »